About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 4:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is it too early, or too late?

The radicals have a hundred year plus, nearly unimpeded head start. Yes, they were fought tooth and nail the whole way, but not taken seriously, until today, they are in the White House, in the USSC, in Congress, in every cog and wheel of government and education and entertainment and disinformation/news.

What would the De-Socialization of America be?

For a start, it would not be the end of socialism; it would be the end of national socialism.

A rollback of the fed as it currently operates.
A rollback of FDR's New Deal.
A rollback of The Great Society.
A rollback of much of Nixon's expansive agenda.
An elimination of the federal Minimum Wage;
An elimination of the federal Department of Education.
An expunging of any vestige of 'redistributive science' in all federal legislation.
A firm separation of the federal government and the economies; the fifty states, running in parallel, are more than sufficient as economic traffic cops.

A re-focusing of the federal government away from the economies, plural, and all things internal, and back to national issues, like defense and relations with other nations.

In short, 'Clorox' applied to any remnants of The Progressive Totalitarian movement for the last 100 plus years.


A man can dream, can't he?

What else goes, in the De-Socialization of America, a.k.a. the Restoration of a Free America defined by fifty experiments running in parallel with complete freedom to vote with our feet?


The freedom to vote with our feet is precisely why the Progressives needed to target National Socialism as their goal; the targeted victims of Socialism must not be free to flee. National Socialism is all about coercion and forced association, the very opposite of freedom. It is why the Progressives lips snarl whenever they use the words Freedom or Liberty.


We'll know America is back when a restored environment of liberty and freedom is so pervasive that the Progressives find it a hairshirt, leading them to flee to Cuba or North Korea or some other socialist pisshole where they could have a crack at the whip.



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 4:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Census Department would be tasked and funded to count American heads only; no ethnic, racial, age, sex, or economic data would be collected by Census.

Every ten years, their report would consist of the distribution of the number of Americans living in America.

Period. That is why we need a Census. The rest is an invitation for mischief.


In this latest IRS scandal, government aparatchiks were demanding of applicants that they disclose their religious beliefs and activities. A question like that deserves only one answer: "Fuck you and go to Hell."

The federal government is totally out of all control, and needs to be cut back severely and harshly.



Post 2

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 4:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Come on folks, get out the figurative axe; what goes?


Post 3

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 12:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The vast majority of individuals don't care so much about whether the productive would be more prosperous in a more capitalist society. They mainly look at things from their own perspective. How much can I gain from producing things for trade in the market? What can I steal from my neighbor? Whats the expected personal gain from stealing from my neighbor? The primary difference between socialism and capitalism is the lack of enforcement of property ownership within a society. Lack of enforcement makes stealing worthwhile. If individuals are capable of & do defend their property from other humans, then there is capitalism. If not, then there is theft, or in a more organized/centralized way: socialism.

Money is anything that is traded, not for a direct need, but to be owned for some period of time (can be nanoseconds), in expectation that it will retain market value in a future exchange.

The US has over time changed from being a constitutional republic to a mob ruling democracy. The majority of US citizens vote to redistribute wealth (via taxes on income) and keep the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money. The primary source of the Federal Government's power is its deadly enforcement of its monopoly on money. It can print whatever it wants to easily steal from the productivity of US citizens in order to finance all aspects of its protection racket. It enforces arbitrary laws by confiscation of bank accounts. It is very easy for the Federal Government to steal from producers and savers. Hence the primary reason for the US becoming more and more socialist is the Federal Government's enforcement of the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money/banking/trade facilitation.

One solution to moving back towards capitalism is the use of decentralized money. In themselves, gold & silver are decentralized money, but unfortunately they are too easily confiscated from the most successful market participants. Transporting them requires powerful security, which makes global trade risky and inefficient. Hence the use of banking & ledgers... which is unfortunately more vulnerable due to its greater centralization. See 1913-1933 for an example of their vulnerability.

Bitcoin is a new decentralized money: You can't stop transactions because the world wide web is full of network nodes that accept transactions indiscriminately. (OK, you could shut down the internet... but I don't think that is going to happen!) One of its most important features is the security of ownership of bitcoins: you can't spend a bitcoin unless you have the private key. You can encrypt your bitcoin private keys with a strong password, and then nobody would be able to spend your bitcoins unless you give them your password. Hence with Bitcoin, it is much easier for people to enforce the ownership of their money.

The more popular Bitcoins become, the less market purchasing power central governments will have.

What else gives individuals the power to enforce the ownership of their property -- despite there being a mob majority that would like to redistribute it?

Post 4

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 6:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

----------------
The vast majority of individuals don't care so much about whether the productive would be more prosperous in a more capitalist society.
----------------

I not only disagree, but think you are dangerously mistaken and have bought into leftist lies. If you study Saul Alinsky, then you will see how terribly important it is to make individuals think that everyone else doesn't care. I listen to both conservative (Glenn, Rush, Sean) and to liberal (NPR) talk radio.

You'd be amazed at how many people call in or get interviewed who admit that they stopped supporting our current president before the time of his 2012 election. Things are different than they appear and that is something that could have been predicted accurately by studying how it is that evil works in the world.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/17, 7:32pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Friday, May 17, 2013 - 7:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

I never, in a million years, thought that I would be the one to play devil's advocate with you ... on the subject of our country's future. That being said, I have 2.5 odd concerns to throw -- like spaghetti -- at your optimism, just to see if any of it sticks.

Again, I cannot believe that I am doing this right now (but don't read into that 'too much'!).

One concern I have is the integration of 2 premises:

1) Rush Limbaugh said we're stuck with our current US president until 2016 (because of the top-down perpetuation of primitive tribalism in this country)

2) A dude who called in to him today insinuated that low-skilled labor in this country -- e.g., millions of unlawful immigrants -- will be replaced by 'human-shaped' robots before 2016

Now, if you make the extra mental effort that it takes to integrate those 2 things, then you have at least a temporary situation where 20 million extra people in this country lose their jobs within a year or two.

Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I know a little bit about the history of mass movements, and about how it is that an evil person could position himself to be "rocketed" into a throne of power over others. If the man-like robot-workers make it off of the assembly line in time -- and the markets don't have time to adjust for that sort of a thing -- then freedom-lovers are in trouble.

Also, I just finished reading "Intellectuals and Society", by Thomas Sowell. It's an excellent read, and in it, he talks about the dangerous hubris (i.e., the "fatal flaw") of social-engineering, political scientists who think that they can create paradise out of whole cloth (or out of say, a society undergoing strife).

Well, without naming any names or any news programs, there was this guy getting interviewed about the future of Syria. He was interviewed because he has expertise in such matters. He insinuated that political scientists can remake Syria, maybe not into a paradise, but into a peaceful place where strife has been severely marginalized.

To hear him gloat about what kind of great, transformative, nation-building power is wielded by such intellectual elites -- after reading Sowell's treatise on the matter -- well, let's just say it made me throw-up in my mouth a little (and incentivized me into this thread to play devil's advocate).

And, to top it off -- yes, there is still topping here! -- to top it off, D. Rumsfeld was interviewed on NPR and he said that history will show that Bush was in fact right to both invade Iraq and to continue the mission in order to nation-build there. To his credit, he mentioned mission-creep and how it is that too much was done there. But he was talking about the future as if he is some kind of a NeoCon (ie., disgruntled liberal) or something! He was talking as if he was cut from the same cloth that Sowell warned me about with his book.

Both political parties, fully entrenched in the same foreign policy (while the country goes under). Ugh!

There. I hope it is out of my system now.

:-)

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/18, 8:36am)


Post 6

Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 6:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed during the Iranian revolution the ayatollah said many of the same things. His "utopian" plan was to place all of the oil money in the hands of "everyone" so that their standard of living would be raised. He promised to keep matters of state and Islam separate. He promised that not only would the universities remain as they were but they would be upgraded...etc etc. we see how well that worked out. What was once the "Paris of the Middle East " is now the brutalist hellhole on earth. Well maybe North Korea is the #1 hellhole but it is close...

Post 7

Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 9:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jules,

Heh. I grabbed one of those impulse-buy, point-of-sale books you see on tables at Barnes & Noble. It's called: "The Most Evil Dictators in History." What the hell are these people trying to do to me, anyway -- make me poor?

:-)

Anyway, so I read the thing and learned that there was this Nicolae C. guy over there in Romania, and that he did some pretty bad stuff to his people. Surprisingly, though I had never heard about him, I had just become an adult at the time of his top-down atrocities. At that age, I was not yet a practicing intellectual. I was more concerned with youthful distractions and couldn't be bothered with the question of whether collectivism is destroying mankind or not.

As things were getting worse, he made public appearances, declaring how things are getting better all of the time, and that, because of his grand schemes -- the country would be energy-independent in just a few, short years! Amazing, these guys.

These friggin' guys.

Makes you throw your hands up sometimes.

Ed

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 10:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I Know!
And Pol Pot was a "benevolent" school teacher! No danger from our leftist professors here, move along nothing to see!

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 3:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

Up is down, left is right, black is white...

... you just accused me of having optimism. I got one of those 'Chris Matthew' leg tingles at that.

Imagine me...an optimist. I was invited to a Sertoma luncheon meeting once, that's as close as I've ever gotten to the optimists.

Oh Hell. Here's some more optimism. Let the Dream of De-Socialization continue...

Imagine an election for POTUS. Someone has just submitted themselves to the election process and WON! WON mind you!

What did they just win?

1] In Socialist America: the lucky winner has just won the right to implement their pet favorite religious theory on all of us losers who didn't win the steel cage death trap fight to the finish election, and is awarded the power of the office of the president to carry out his whims. The lucky winner is handed a Scepter and becomes Emperor Elect over all of us.

2] In Free America: the election winner has just won the sacred obligation to defend American Freedom, and is given the power of the office of president to carry out that mission. The honorable winner is handed a plunger and tasked with keeping the plumbing of state clean and free flowing.


How should we regard our president? Is he Maximus Leader, Runner of The Economy, Maker of Widows and Orphans, Breaker of Hearts?

Or is he the Plumber in Chief?

How does America regard its president? Do 51% send him into an office with a 'mandate' to screw the losing 49% on their behalf?

Eisenhower and JFK were the last great American centrist presidents. It has been a nearly unabated and unmitigated freak show ever since. (I'm sorry, Steve, I still can't applaud Reagan after his grand compromise with O'Neill-- the event that set us finally onto our current Wreck on Rails. He took the five minutes necessary to switch parties from Democrat to Republican and was charismatic, but we -knew- the Soviets were farming with ox carts in the 80s and Reagan sold us out so he could spike the ball in the endzone as his legacy. I know we disagree on Reagan; without a time machine, not much to be done about it either way.)

I can't believe how many people look back at Clinton and say 'Remember Clinton and all those surplusses?' Because I DO remember Clinton.

He campaigned on the following three 'must haves:' 1] Stimulus Plan 2] BTU Tax 3] nationalized Health Care.

He passed NONE OF THE ABOVE.

What he did reasonably do is what we call the catastrophe of sequestration today; he leveled off the Reagan Defense Buildup in the wake of the acknowledged end of the Cold War and the demise of the former USSR(and its Centrally Planned/Command and Control 'The Economy' Running.) He cut the scheduled increases in federal spending... and got none of his costly major social agenda passed. Zero. Nada.

But he over-reached in 93/94 and in Nov '94, he was spanked so hard that in January 1995 he gave the "The Erah of Big Guvmint is Ovah" speech. Then, for six years, Congress was harmlessly perseverating on the stains on chubber's blue dress, and a relieved nation -breathed a sigh of relief- that Clinton's attempt to lurch the nation left had FAILED-- and the economies grew.

In Nov 1997, at a talk at UCal/Berkley, Dr. Laura D'Andrea Tyson admitted that the symbolic 3.6% surcharge on incomes over 250,000 was nowhere close to explaining the surge of revenues into Treasury in the last half of the 90s; in her words "Nothing we did." But not exactly true-- Clinton did level off the Reagan defense buildup, the economies kept growing, and the combination of those two resulted in federal spending surplus.

In short -- Bush/Obama did the exact opposite of what Clinton did... they got their federal 'stimulus' and nationalized Health Care Program and even, finally, the same symbolic 3.6% surcharge on income over 250,000...

... and they also got the exact opposite result that Clinton got when he visibly failed to lurch the nation left.

This experiment has been officially run; five plus years now(because you have to include Bush's gleeful embrace of Big Government as well.) The debate is actually over, but all that is left is a desperate attempt by the left to repaint history and blame all their economic fat fingering on 'capitalism.' That 'screech' we are hearing is Katrina Van Den Heuval, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, etc. -- a whole Klaven of lefties on MSNBC -- desperately clinging to the table top of history, and prevaricating at 90 mile per hour, trying to avoid the inevitable: the De-Socialization of America, the rollback of a hundred year Progressive attack on a free America.



Post 10

Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 6:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is it just me, or does Dan Pfeiffer even LOOK like H.R. Haldeman?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 11:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

You're killing me with the optimism. I love it. Regarding Pfeiffer, maybe he's Haldeman after a couple months on a fast food diet. Pfeiffer is well fed. One thing about Pfeiffer though, is he doesn't look into the camera (as when interviewed by Stefanopoulos on the "scandals 3"), but instead looks down or to the side -- a sign similar to that often presented by liars. It was almost as if he wasn't just prepped for the interview, but coached through it in real time (as by a quick typist behind a teleprompter.)

Ed


Post 12

Monday, May 20, 2013 - 4:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

All kidding aside, you are so right on with that observation of Pfeiffer looking like he was uncomfortably telling fibs...

...as for the chubberliness, well, he's in The Capitol in our version of The Hunger Games, where times are fat and the bidness of giving people the bidness is booming.


I mispoke yesterday; he wasn't on all 3 network Sunday morning talking head shows...he was on all 5!

What does it say when all 5 networks align like that? It's one thing when they do it because the subjects are themselves part of the weekly news, but this guy is nothing but a political flak mouthpiece for the administration, and all five netwrorks gave him all the airtime he wanted to pump out the excuses and prevarications and spin necessary to try and spackle over Obama with a little cover in the current crapstorm.

Clearly, the Soviets in the White House called on all five networks and asked that the Minister of Propaganda be given unfettered access to the airwaves, in order to ... well, look like a chubby H.R.Haldeman who was lying through his teeth. "Er...the dog ate my homework." The optics were terrible. They are supposed to be so good at this bullshit. First of all, they should have sent out a woman again, like Wright. Not one of the frat boys from Delta House. But maybe they said "Crap, we can't send out another woman this time, it will remind everyone of when we sent out Wright..."

Did it accomplish what they needed?

How? Who is this nation?

regards,
Fred

Post 13

Friday, May 24, 2013 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

I just educated myself about George Creel, Thomas Gregory, and the American Protective League; integrating their actions with Wilson's demand that every power everywhere be extinguished -- that is, if it meets his personal-but-unmentioned criteria for being something that ever could or ever would disrupt "world peace."

But in order to get yourself into a position to accomplish that kind of a thing, then you would have to arrange it so that you could be operating with unbound power. Anyway, those were some interesting times, I'd say -- way back then.

Ed


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.