Posted on 02/03/2014 5:12:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
After 2 years, one man is living in a log cabin, has cleared ground for a garden, built a fishweir in the creek, and is raising rabbits in a woven willow warren.
The other man heard the first man cutting wood, but considered it a pointless excercise. He ends up sleeping under a rock overhang and eating grubs from under the leaves.
Would the man eating grubs be eating rabbit stew, if the first man hadn't built his cabin and domesticated some rabbits? That is the Leftist argument.
Maggie Thatcher had a great rebuttal to those who bemoaned “inequality”.
She said the left would rather have very little inequality “down here”, than a lot of inequality “up here”.
She used her hands to show that the level of wealth “up here” was higher even for the poor than the “rich” “down here”.
I (like many sci-fi writers for decades) actually thought about this possibility many years ago when robots started replacing humans in assembly lines in auto plants. I thought, what if in the future the great majority of jobs now done by humans could be done by machines or robots? Then what?
We're not quite to that stage yet. Because basically, while old jobs are destroyed by automation or obsolescence, new ones are created by new technology. Humans have to keep up with the new tech. Some can, and some can't.
If the second man is a liberal, he will show up at the cabin of the first man and threaten to kill him with his ax if the first man doesn’t give the second man his “fair share” of housing and food.
You’re forgetting that a sizable pct. of people are just plain too stupid and/or lazy and violent to acquire or keep a job to sustain themselves or their families.
“The other man heard the first man cutting wood, but considered it a pointless excercise. He ends up sleeping under a rock overhang and eating grubs from under the leaves.”
Of course in today’s society, it reads
“ He ends up demanding from the first man his equal (human) rights, ends up moving in and of course enjoying the spoils of the first man’s hard work.”
There was a Stossel segment w/ Dave Ramsey on:
Stossel said that there were two harmful myths that many believe about the nation’s economic situation: “One is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer,” said Stossel. “The truth is, yes, over time the rich have gotten richer but so have the poor — 20 percent richer since I was in college.”
Stossel said that “to be poor in America is to live a life better than most have lived through history.” Fox put up a graphic that showed the “poorest fifth of Americans are now 17 percent richer than they were in 1967,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
bttt
As she was interviewing one young woman, the young woman's cell phone started beeping. The young woman took out her cell phone and started talking to the person on the other end for a few minutes. Then she finally ended the call and blissfully continued on with her interview. She did not get the job.
You don’t get hired by poor folks.
There are actually two philosophies of the wealthy. The one Americans know is “live and let live”. That is, if you become wealthy, most Americans are either utterly indifferent if other people become wealthy, or better off themselves, or *in favor* of other people becoming wealthy as well. It’s the American way.
However, in Old Europe, there used to be just two social classes: the rich nobility, and the poor peasantry. And the way the rich nobility remained in power was by “keeping the peasants down.” Well, as Old Europe colonized the world, it infected them with this idea as well.
Compare two men: Bill Gates, and Carlos Slim of Mexico.
Gates has made himself wealthy, and in the process created at least a dozen billionaires, hundreds of multimillionaires, and likely enriched hundreds of thousands of other people. And this doesn’t bother him one bit.
Carlos Slim, however, is leader of one of about a dozen wealthy families in Mexico that control almost all the wealth. But the vast majority of his employees earn the equivalent of the Mexican minimum wage. His managers don’t earn much more than that. And even most of his executives only earn a tiny fraction of what those who sit on his board of directors do.
The only wealthier people he has created already come from wealthy families. They are of the elites.
However, this attitude gets rather repugnant. Many of those who attend economic conferences such as at Davos, find they cannot enjoy their wealth unless surrounded by grueling poverty. Their Champagne is not as bubbly and their caviar is less salty, plus their endangered animal steak has less flavor, unless the miserable peasants are there to be gazed on.
I call this the “Old Europe disease”. And it causes a lot of pain. It also gives rise to violent, populist egalitarianism. Revolutionaries who want to depose the wealthy snoots and replace them, then of course, becoming just as repugnant.
Sadly, those elites infected by OED, want to spread it, like rabies, to the American wealthy. And some of the Americans, like Al Gore and John Kerry, like the idea that they should be rich nobles, lording it over the peasantry, the rest of us they look at with contempt.
Then arises the question: nature or nurture? My take is some nature, most nurture.
so many people fall for that fallacy it is sad
Your post above is clear, easily understood and appears comprehensive. A quick reading of other posts reveals that you offer sensible and thought provoking arguments relating to similar national issues.
But then, unfortunately, you seem to despair. For example:
Can someone please explain to me why I should vote Republican in November 2014?
and then,
The Republican Party has no concept of how to fight politically because it stands for nothing.
It appears true, as you suggest elsewhere, that if we have not yet reached the tipping point in terms of a nationwide left leaning voting block, then we are very near it. If Republican voters don't go to the polls, of course, it is a moot point, we are clearly beyond the tipping point.
Elsewhere you set out three options; the most attractive being, in my opinion, to capture and reform the GOP.
If so, and to answer your question, then we should be thinking of voting Republican at the national level as a means of constructing a “holding pattern” or, if you wish, conducting an "effective fighting retreat".
Such will buy us time to educate those that have been numbed by the progressive MSM/education system/Hollywood complex, time for the rest to be reawakened and encouraged and time to select fearless politicians at the local level.
What other steps are likely to produce an acceptable result within the next 50-100 years?
Guess I am cold blooded.
She didn't get the job, either.
I’ve noticed that - once a (leftist) person gets to the point where more wealth will not enhance his lifestyle,
they start trying to increase the difference between their lifestyle and everyone else by DECREASING the lifestyle of the masses.
Bwahahaha! Economic inequality is not a *problem*, it's a 'consequence' of equal Rights.
Section VI.
By equality, in a democracy, is to be understood, equality of civil rights, and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties, in an honest way, and the fruits of his labour, thus acquired, are his own. But, some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labour must be various, and their property must become unequal.
St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States , 1803.
“But then, unfortunately, you seem to despair. For example . . .”
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. . . “. To paraphrase Dickens there are always reasons to be optimistic, even when dark clouds are upon us.
I am extremely discouraged but not in despair. Human beings ultimately will chafe at the ropes that bind them to the point they rebel. The non producers today do not feel the ropes. They accepted the chains of the progressive plantation years ago. To the degree they are unhappy it is because they are not receiving more, not because their lives have been restricted.
I perceive some of the educated who accepted limitations on their freedoms (economic and otherwise) did so because they have an emotional need to be perceived as caring. Some of these people are beginning to feel the pain of supporting the liberal state such as the woman who supported Obamacare but was shocked at the increase in her own premiums. She was fine with Obamacare as long as most of the financial burden was diffused across the population. Once she was hit with an annual premium increase of over a thousand dollars it suddenly became a burden on her and a restriction on her lifestyle.
I also sense some of the youth in this country are beginning to realize the Emperor is not fully clothed. The 18 years olds who enthusiastically departed for college and celebrated voting for the first black president in 2008 are now approaching 24. They’ve now spent two years in the real world away from their marxist professors. Most don’t have jobs, are in jobs with no future, or if they are fortunate to have jobs with a future are now realizing the competition to get ahead is brutal. Some of those with paychecks may be beginning to resent sharing the sweat of their brows with the baby breeders in the projects or the men shuffling around on the sidewalks all day talking on their Obamaphones. To the 24 year olds struggling to find a job or keep one, George Bush lived a century ago. Obama has been president for 1/6 of their lives and 100% of their adult lives. The “blame” rhetoric from the president is getting tiring. Some young voters are starting to ask questions and look for different answers than hot air they accepted as gospel from the propagandists at the university before they had to feed themselves. Perhaps the refusal of the young to embrace Obamacare with their money is a sign the glow is beginning to fade.
The tide will almost certainly turn soon for the elderly. The healthcare disaster is about to slam them hard. Doctors are walking away from Medicare patients so timely healthcare services are going to become impossible to get for some older people. The death panels will soon be operating. When 70 year olds are denied hip replacements, artery stents, transplants, and heart valve replacements there is going to be a reaction at the polls if there is an opposition party smart enough to capitalize on what will be real rage. It won’t take the government declaration it wants to euthanize those over 75 for the good of the state to organize the elderly if the GOP can seize the day.
The Democrats have run the “war on women” campaign to the point people are tired of it. The elderly are ripe today for the Republicans to blame the Dems for a war on the elderly. The medicare disaster, increasing inflation, and low interest rates for savers are potent issues that can be exploited with a voting block that will come out in numbers. Why the GOP leadership doesn’t go there escapes me.
My thinking on the GOP today is its leadership is dependent on big business for funding moderate candidates. it is apparent the Chamber of Commerce has essentially blackmailed the party leaders. The big corporations comprising the Chamber want amnesty, open immigration, free trade, and government run healthcare. It appears the Chamber has told the Republican leadership there will be no significant funding in 2014 if the party doesn’t muzzle or throw out the right wing tea party types. The leadership sees no other sources of funding than the Chamber to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to fund Congressional campaigns in 2014. The Dems have the unions, public sector employees, non-profit groups, and the media before they start tapping the Hollywood left and the liberal business community. Without the Chamber Republicans have zero hope of running financially competitive campaigns.
Rush Limbaugh asked an interesting question today. Could it be the Chamber has actually been captured by progressives who are now using the money sledgehammer to destroy the GOP for the 2014 and 2016 elections? What if the party elites purge the tea party and the promised money never comes? Without big money the Senate is out of reach and the GOP could lose the House.
I do see things getting much worse before getting better. The Democrats have a good shot at destroying the Republican party as an effective opposition party. Once they have control of the legislature and the executive branches it will be a few short years before they control the judiciary as well. The stage will be set for a dictatorship. Certainly the Dems will not hesitate to use the full power of the government to dissuade wealthy people and businesses from funding an opposition party. Look at the war on the Koch brothers today when we still have somewhat of a competitive system.
I think the odds are better than 50/50 we will have one party rule by the end of this decade and a totalitarian state that suppresses the opposition and manages the economy to reward its supporters and punish real or perceived enemies. Free speech will end. With few exceptions freedom of the press is already gone and once the internet is heavily regulated it will be gone. The second amendment is under heavy attack today. Once we have one party rule it will first be impossible to obtain permits to buy guns and ammunition. Later there will be confiscation of firearms.
Today few are willing to risk their livelihoods to protect their freedom, much less their lives. There will come a time when the chains of bondage become so constricting men and women will rebel. It may take decades, or even centuries for this to happen. It depends on how bad living conditions are and how hopeless the future may seem. The 70 year old who can’t get a new heart valve might be willing to blow himself up in an act of defiance. The 25 year old third generation welfare queen birthing her fourth child and living on the dole just like her mother and grandmother did may be very happy with her lot in life. The 30 year old laboring away for a company or small business may be more interested advancing his/her career than putting their lives on the line. Time will tell.
However, if the economy goes totally to hell, the currency collapse, and the the rule of law is generally viewed as capricious, the broader population might be willing to march on Washington and government installations. If so, there could be revolution and dramatic change.
Time will tell. Long term history shows the human spirit eventually fights back and triumphs over tyranny. However, it also shows that human beings often tolerate extreme brutality for decades before they decide to rise up.
What do we do today? We as individuals have little choice other than to vote against the totalitarian marxists even when our only alternative is the statist unprincipled RINO. We must become involved in government at the local level. Attend school board, city council, and county commissioner meetings. The liberal public interest groups are there in force. Last week in my community there was a school board meeting where the teachers unions and liberal groups showed up to pressure the local school board to vote to join a lawsuit against school vouchers. Thanks to enough concerned citizens showing up the conservatives on the board were able to stave off a vote in the face of incredible intimidation.
The point is we can make a difference if we take real action to push back in our communities. Sometimes our community leaders want to do the right thing but only hear from the progressives. When they know they have support, they will often stand against the pressure. When they perceive no support it is easier to go along.
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.