Posted on 12/13/2001 7:37:16 AM PST by John SBM
Socialism is still a dirty word in American politics. But, like an obese person who looks in the mirror and see a thin reflection denying they are fat, America is in a state of denial. If we look the evidence is there, but rather than admit it we refuse to acknowledge the word. Does evasion of the fact change the reality?
Every major historic period can be categorized by the dominant philosophy of the time. We know them. The Dark Ages, The Renaissance, The Enlightenment. And we know what each label represented as the dominant, generally accepted ideas of the time. These labels are attached however, not during the period, but after, when we can see them in the context of history. Whether we label our current period as Post-Modern or whatever, in historic context it could be labeled as The Altruist Evasion.
Altruism is the dominant, generally accepted idea underlying all of our political and cultural discourse, and it permeates both political parties. The ideas that economic rights are the basic rights of all Americans, that the government exists to promote the welfare of some at the expense of others, that we owe “service” and must “give back” to society – these are the basic premises of every issue. And Pragmatism rules every action – action for the sake of the emotional benefit of action rather than the result. Altruism demands pragmatic approaches, because it is based on emotional arguments and collapses when faced with principled challenges. Altruism is the underlying support for socialism, where group rights are primary, individual rights are disposable.
Take a look. The tax code exists to transfer wealth; the total tax burden exceeds 50% and is the single biggest expense for most working Americans. Politicians gain power through the give and take of economic rights and benefits – look at the economic stimulus debate. We talk of the right to housing, to health care, to prescription drugs, to guaranteed retirement, without ever asking “at whose expense?”
Ayn Rand summarized this very simply – when you abandon one set of principles you adopt another. We have abandoned the principles of individual rights and accepted those of economic rights – the degree of socialization doesn’t change that fact. We can evade the word “Socialism”, but that doesn’t change the reality.
Property taxes are tied to local government-- it's just a choice that most localities have made. They could have just as easily chosen an income tax, increased sales tax, or something else as a funding mechanism. If you want to go live in the far reaches of, say, West Texas, I think you'll find that your property taxes are wonderfully affordable, while the level of local government services you receive is commensurate with the taxes you pay. On the other hand, if you want to live in an infrastructure and service-intensive city, you have to expect to pay for those things.
Also, I would like to point out that the total tax burden indicated in the article above of 50% is just flat wrong. At that rate, government spending would have to account for 50% of GDP and it just doesn't. A tax analysis web site I looked at the other day listed the total tax burden of the U.S. at 24%.
As for how high the burden can go before government collapses? Seems like an uninteresting question to me-- taxes are going down these days, not up. The question is, how can we continue to lower them without sacrificing valuable services that government provides? Some obvious answers-- eliminating bogus Federal agencies like education-- or at least steadily defunding it until it is a mere vestige of itself. Also-- farm subsidies. Why do we do this?
The first step in repeal of this wealth re-distribution (which is a Marxists philosophy, BTW) would be to repeal the income tax. Our government was not set up to provide "Safety Nets" to those who (in too many cases) REFUSE to support themselves and their off-spring. The fruits of my labors should not be STOLEN under threat of prosecution to support someone else nor, even, someone else's ideals. This IS socialism and just because people choose to keep their heads in the sand doesn't make it less true.
When the dear old federal government decided to BRIBE/BLACKMAIL the individual states to enact seat-belt laws with money they STOLE from us to begin with - they moved one step closer to COMMUNISM and it has steadily gotten worse since then. Zoning laws are socialist. Government run/funded schools are socialist especially when coupled with MANDATORY attendence laws and curriculum. Anti-smoking laws are socialist. "Hate speech crimes" are socialist (the 1st amendment PROTECTS free speech - it doesn't say a darn thing about free speech as long as no one's feelings are hurt - remember the old addage about sticks and stones? Of course, they don't teach THAT in school any more). Seat belt laws are socialist (these laws were "supposedly" enacted because people who weren't buckleing up were costing "society" $$$ if they were involved in accidents --- no more socialist medicaid and medicare and no more "reason" for seat belt LAWS). The "powers that be" will probably use this same line of "reasoning" when they outlaw Big Macs, french fries, fried chicken and caffine containing drinks. After all, these things are "costing" society!! BS!! The government is supposed to protect us NOT regulate us and steal the fruits of our labors. If the government wants to INFORM us that fried foods aren't healthy, that it's safer to wear our seat belts while driving, that we SHOULD (not MUST) purchase cars with air-bags, that smoking is dangerous, etc. etc, ad infintim, GREAT! When it starts mandating BEHAVIOR that harms only the "perpetrator", then the problems start. How long will it be before the gov. starts deciding what kind of chairs or beds we can buy for our homes (more than they already do), after all, we all know that waterbeds are bad for our back. Right? .... right?
When we allowed the government to start doing our thinking and reasoning for us, we abdicated our personal responsibilties to the nanny state and the ONLY way (IMHO) to regain our freedom would be to VASTLY reduce its power by VASTLY reducing its power (money).
Getting back to the reference in the quote about "fearing the government", how long do you honesly think that the person/group who paid for the billboard would remain free of IRS audits, inciting _____ (you fill in the blank) arrests and sheer harrasment by the government? I have PERSONALLY been there, done that and can tell you - it ain't a fun place to be. The bottom line - where do we get MORE people who are willing and able to start "taking on" the federal monolith? What I have found is that a great many people will SAY they back you, or will promise help but when it gets right down to it - they "remember" something else that they simply MUST take care of and you find yourself out in the wind alone. The government ends up winning these battles due to the amount of money (stolen) and resources (paid for with the stolen money) that it can throw into the ring. Few people are equipped to survive the legal battles that may ensue and, yet, we MUST start doing something to clue people in, wake them up, and get them motivated or it will soon be too late for us all.
Our Country's founders knew that, at some point in time, that it may become necessary for us to wage another war hence, the quote about the tree of liberty having to be watered with the blood of patriots from time to time. Thing is - it's easier to sit back and HOPE than it is to do something proactive and most people will always take the easy way.
The billboard could be a wonderful idea - thing is - it would have to point/lead to another source for additional information. Any ideas on that?
Or put another way capitalism is for the super-rich in the USA (who can beat the capital sucking taxes by use of lawyers, tax trickery, off-shore corporations, etc.) For the rest of us, we own nothing really. Programs like the 401K keep us poor by limiting the amount we can save tax free towards retirement (and pretend like it is a favor). Any thing that retains value would include savings accounts, which are taxed on interest, stocks and bonds which are taxed on gains and everything else I can think of.
Great point. This is what I would most like to see fixed.
i must respond again! i am in violent agreement with you!
Ahh, the dreaded Poll Tax. Everytime this was tried in Britan it resulted in riots. I'd love to see it tried here, for anything, say a city tax, just once!
The law would read: "Every citizen of the City of New York shall owe a tax of $5000. due in full on the first of May of each year."
Howls of outrage! Xlinton and Sharpton frothing! Ahh, a sweat dream ...
Sun-Tzu and guerilla warfare: use your strengths to maximum advantage, exploit the opponents' weaknesses, and use their strengths to their disadvantage. =^)
Ahh, but we all don't pay taxes, do we. The poor spend from the system but don't put in. The very rich pay at massively reduced rates by using loopholes and lawyers. That leaves the middle class (really any salaried employee basically) as the real taxPAYER in the system.
For us the 50% is conservative. Do the simple math. 39% top rate on income + 8.5% state income (my state) + sales tax (0% in my state) + excise taxes on gas, booze, etc. + capital gains (double taxation) ... 50% is very conservative accounting.
That said, taxes are too high overall, and government needs to be pruned and redirected to provide the important services we all require (I've been really pleased with the military recently-- looks like we've gotten our money's worth there!) But, overstating one's case does nothing to advance it-- I wish more people realized that. All it does is polarize the debate and make everyone look silly.
I agree completely. Which is precisely why I get so frustrated whenever I encounter one of these People Who Simply Refuse To Let You Use The Word "Socialist".
What exactly are they trying to accomplish, if not merely to further the trend you describe?
I see this one as, at least, a possibility because they are already organized and, to some extent, funded. Problem is, these groups are only interested in gaining power it seems, not in actually affecting change (unless they're the ones in charge). What I'm wondering is the best way to get groups together on local levels, gather the funding for the billboards and then have a means of contact for those who may wish to jump on the band-wagon. (a web site would probably be ideal but, and this comes from experience, this involves LOTS and LOTS of time). Thoughts on fund-raising and organization?
If they were, would it help you understand? What about if they weren't?
And would you let me use the word "socialist" in any event? It doesn't seem to me like you think it is ever valid to use the word in a sentence, so how can I answer? In fact I'm amazed you were able to use the word in a sentence, given your ongoing attempts to excise it from the English language. Although, to be fair, you used it in a question, a rather rhetorical question at that, expecting to get a negative response.
I think I understand: it is possible to use the word "socialist" in a sentence. The way you do so is to say that something "is not socialist". Or, some country "is not socialist". Or you ask, with sarcasm, "are you saying that such-and-such is socialist?", and everyone is supposed to know that this is absurd.
You are nothing if not consistent with the dictionary: "socialism", as such, by the dictionary definition, doesn't exist. And to your credit you remain true to the dictionary definition. Socialism, apparently, only exists as a negative concept, in the form of Things, People And Countries Which are Not Socialist. That is the only legal way to speak about "socialism". I understand now.
P.S. If you really wanted an answer to your dismissive question, I guess I would say that, according to my understanding of them, 401K plans are slightly more fascist than anything else: they, like all "tax break" type of schemes, are threats to individuals, "Engage in this behavior (i.e. investing), or else we will engage in socialism (i.e. tax) against you!" The behavior itself, of course (investing), retains its "capitalist" flavor. But that is merely the nature of fascism. (Many if not most of the people would not be using their 401K money in precisely that way, if the government didn't promise to take a substantial percentage of it away, if they didn't....)
And besides, fascism is but a slightly tweaked version of socialism anyway.
When have I ever said you can't use the word? I simply questioned its utility in this thread, albeit strongly.
It doesn't seem to me like you think it is ever valid to use the word in a sentence, so how can I answer?
I haven't said that. I simply said that we should agree on what we mean when we say it, especially if what we mean, as you have ackonowledged, is neither the meaning you will find in a dictionary nor the common usage of the word. Seems reasonable to me, despite your shock and amazement (or perhaps bemusement) to the contrary.
We debated the definition, and I think have finished that debate. You have demanded that socialism means--for the sake of this debate anyway-- what you say it means. I am ready to move on and use your definition from the last paragraph of post # 259, whereby all nations are socialist along a sliding scale ( a point I acknowledged long ago, though you seemed unable to recognize that I had done so.) So, we have a definition. Mission accomplished.
In fact I'm amazed you were able to use the word in a sentence, given your ongoing attempts to excise it from the English language.
There's that---is it shock and amazement? Frustration? Outrage? I don't know what it is. But it is most definitely hyperbole to say that I have been attempting to excise a word from the language by referring first to its literal meaning, and also to its common usage, whereas you have--by your own account--adopoted a meaning which is neither. Perhaps you are on the bleeding edge of lexicography. I don't doubt that you have the intellect for it. But to cry foul at me for seeking an understanding of what we mean when we use the word is, to use your word, odd.
Although, to be fair, you used it in a question, a rather rhetorical question at that, expecting to get a negative response.
Incorrect. Since you are apparantly much more knowledgable than I am on the subject, I simply wanted to probe the boundaries of socialism. Tax incentives are socialism in your book. I honestly thought the answer was a 50-50 proposition. I take it to mean Roth IRAs are also socialist. Is it your contention that by classifying them so, people will be less inclined towards socialism? You appear to think so when you say, in post #276:
I agree completely. Which is precisely why I get so frustrated whenever I encounter one of these People Who Simply Refuse To Let You Use The Word "Socialist".What exactly are they trying to accomplish, if not merely to further the trend you describe?
I submit to you that if you let people know that 401Ks, IRAs, and the war on drugs are socialist ideas, the result will be that most people will learn that socialism isn't really that bad in their opinion. Which is to say, using your definition of socialism, most definitely America is socialist, and, using my previously mentioned scale (Cuba=10, Switzerland=3), USA is probably, oh, let's say a 5.
...you ask, with sarcasm, "are you saying that such-and-such is socialist?", and everyone is supposed to know that this is absurd.
You detected sarcasm where there was none. And what makes you think it is absurd, the answers that you give?
You are nothing if not consistent with the dictionary: "socialism", as such, by the dictionary definition, doesn't exist. And to your credit you remain true to the dictionary definition.
Hopefully this misconception has been cleared up in my earlier comments. I believe that the dictionary or common usage are great places to find an agreed upon definition of a word, and I also believe that in order to have a meaningful discussion on whether or not A is properly described by a word, we should all know what we mean by that word. We have since settled on a fallback position, and have agreed to use what YOU say the word means. That should really end the discussion on that point. I had moved on.
If you really wanted an answer to your dismissive question,
I wasn't being dismissive. It was a simple question. If you can show me where it was either sarcastic, or dismissive, I will apologize, for it was not my intention to be either. But I believe it was pretty straightforward, and totally in bounds, considering your expertise in this area.
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces,
group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
:-P
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.