Posted on 01/26/2013 9:39:58 AM PST by Impala64ssa
Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.
For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”
All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
All fits zer0s Marxist hopes and dreams
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. Mao Tse Tung.
Well, you don't know, maybe that's what those particular people "needed" and Communism was just delivering as ordered! [/s]
But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?
It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”
Liberal control freaks think they have all the answers - the rest of us are growing to hate them...
I saw this, very sad. As a side note, a hot topic on the old car chat rooms from down under, besides how to rebuild the carbies on their “utes”, or finding parts for the old Falcons, Monaros, Kingas, etc. is how to keep their cars from being stolen in the first place. It seems a car is more likely to be stolen out of a locked garage in Sydney, than off some “inner city” street in the US.
Good article, but if it were actually by David Mamet wouldn’t there be a lot more swear words in it?
“Karl Marx summed up Communism as ‘from each according to his ability... (translation: you DON’T OWN what you produce!), to each according to his needs.’” (Who the HELL gets to decide what YOU NEED?...hint: NOT YOU!)
I've actually heard a far more accurate version of the statement, given the actual workings of a Marxist economy in a communist state:“from each according to his ability, in service to The State, to each according to his needs, in service to The State.”
Remember, "The Good of the State" is the ultimate goal. Don't ever let anyone tell you that "true communism" has never been implemented. It's been in use for eons... Look at an insect hive society, primarily an ant or bee colony. That is the "perfect" communist implementation.
Mark
And the hive mentality is the end result sought by the “Progressive/Liberal/Leftist/Socialists”.
"It's called a confidence game. Why? Because you give me your confidence? No. Because I give you mine."
BTTT!
Your title was completely different and source to NEWSWEEK.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2982391/posts
This thread has been pulled.
Locked on 1/27/2013 10:24:24 AM by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
Title and link wrong
HOLLYWOOD POWERHOUSE COMES OUT PUBLICLY IN FAVOR OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT
NEWSWEEK ^ | January 29, 2013 | David Mamet
Posted on 1/27/2013 10:09:40 AM by ExSoldier
Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.
Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms. More legal guns equal less crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Say what?! I thought Clinton signed into law a bill that limited how long future Presidents would get Secret Service protection. When did that change?
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.