Posted on 08/01/2002 5:07:22 AM PDT by banjo joe
Asking your input, Freepers. I need talking points. Many of my liberal acquaintances can't understand why a wealthy individual (e.g., Ted Turner) would support socialism in America. I have some ideas, but welcome yours, thanks!
and the rich rich...
it's all about control - control the wealth and you decide who gets rich...
the biggest hustle since PT Barnum is what socialism is...
turner wants to be safe in his wealth...
he doesn't want any competition...
Because they're already on top of the hill. Socialist policies hurt the little guy more than the big guy, it eliminates the upstart competition that may threaten the dominance of the big guys. Raising taxes on a man that makes $1 billion a year isn't going to hurt his standard of living. Raising taxes on a small business owner who's trying to expand his business to be a competitor with the big guys is highly destructive.
I think that's one reason people like Perot don't mind higher taxes, anyway. They've already made theirs. Higher tax rates mostly hurt those who haven't made theirs yet.
The idea is that liberals actually have contempt for the common man and therefore try to do what they must so that they can have enough power to affect their lives.
Certainly explains part of the Clintons MO.
The only reason I can think of is that they feel "guilty" about their "good fortune" and want to help the "little guy." Of course, they want the government to do all the helping with tax payer money and not with their own money (they have a platoon of tax attorneys/accountants to pay as least amount of taxes as possible).
They are against vouchers yet send their kids to private schools. They are all for nationalized medicine but will go to "private" doctors if that ever happens. They are all for government restricting the use of private land as long as their own properties are not affected. They are all for redistributing wealth and long as it is not their wealth. They are for banning guns because they have private security and can live in places "where their is no crime."
Discussions are pointless as they do not respond to logical arguments nor facts.
And yes, they think Clinton is the greatest president we have ever had
Ted "former Mr. Hanoi Jane Fonda" uses every government, political and charitable connection for his self-gain while proclaiming his altruism.
The Socialists, like the Brits, love the idea of a royal class governing the peasant masses. 90% taxation ensures that no grunt will ever rise up in a single generation to compete with them. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor - nobody moves in a class-oriented society.
Thank God for Capitalism.
Rather than treat you to an extended soliloquy, I shall direct you to a very valuable little book, all of whose observations are relevant: Ludwig von Mises's The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. It's short, written for the intelligent layman, and every page is golden.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
These arguments are pieced together from the observable facts that the people do actually see in their own lives, but the conclusions about the motives are consistently incorrect, and based upon their own insecurities. I'm sure that there is someone somewhere who is expending effort to keep down the competition, but that effort is usually a waste of time. Better to work to stay ahead of the competition than work to keep the competition behind you.
The book I mentioned on the other hand, gets to the heart of the issue.
The real mystery isn't why the people at the top favor this game, but rather why on earth the people on the bottom would support a movement that can only succeed in keeping poor people poor?
When money is available to buy all desired creature comforts, the wealthy turn to intangible desires, usually power. This is true from the top of the pryamid down, the closer to the top one is with wealth the more apt he is to go for the whole ball of wax. The Rockefellers, Kennedys, Bushs are current examples.
Bullseye. It is all about guilt. They can't live with the fact that some people won't do as well as others in a capitalist system.
What system maximises the value of this asset? Socialism. In real socialism (as opposed to textbook socialism), you get places by trading favors, by knowing people, by playing games of politics and intrigue -- something like the court politics of the feudal age.
In both feudalism and socialism, you get "stuff" by having the king/Party allocate it to you, in exchange for your loyal support of the system -- not because you actually produce stuff to freely exchange with the peasants. The wealthy have always wanted to rise to the status of "nobleman" (high Party official), and have the power to destroy all who slight them. This is the appeal of "real" socialism: the power to destroy the wealth, position and lives of those who displease you.
The "common man" is the foot soldier of the socialist revolution. When the revolution is won, the footsoldiers will be lined up in front of trenches or gas chambers and disposed of. It happened in Nazi Germany (the night of the long knives), it happened in bolshevik Russia for example. The rich also do not want common africanhyphenamericans or any other unacceptable ethnic minority to be in their world other than just as soldiers. They hide their racism by appearing to be the champions of the downtrodden. As long as they are robbing us a gunpoint on payday (taxes) to pay for the welfare state, they know they will keep a significant number of their hyphen clients off their backs and out of their upscale neighborhoods.
I believe the reason is because they aren't together, but I'm open to facts to the contrary. (should I have capitalized "Facts"?)
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.