I have seen a resurgence of a movement that is getting away with not being asked simple, but important questions. I would like to use this blog as a means of asking these questions, defining this movement, and making sure that everyone who mistakenly parrots its talking points understands what it is he/she is advocating. The movement is from the Democrat party, with many in the GOP allowing/helping or at least acting naïve enough to help further it...it is the 21st century version of the 19th century social system we now know as "Progressivism", but used to be called "Socialism". It works under the exact same premise, that the "middle class" (used to be called "working class") is the provider of all wealth, and the "Millionaires" (used to be called "capitalists") are the idle ones standing around getting rich off of the workers' toil.
In the late 19th century, America roundly rejected socialism because of the ways in which it needed to operate...the socialists recognized that a social revolution was not supported by America, so they rebranded, changed definitions, and tried a new approach...incremental socialism without a revolution, done by executive order, majority rule and guilt...all the while avoiding the legal and American way of amending the constitution to make it a "legal transformation" of the system we live in. Once it started, it could not be undone, because all you need to do is claim it is for the children, the poor, the handicapped...or any other group...regardless of whether the socialist plans even helped those they claim it is for. So...what was the question that stopped "socialism" in its track at the turn of the 20th century? "Do you condone confiscation?" Simple...but the answer provides all you need now to reject it again.
Do you condone confiscation? Confiscation is the only way to make socialism work; it requires the capital and resources of the capitalist to fund and reward those who "work" in productive and unproductive endeavors. If the answer is yes...you must justify taking the property of someone else...how is this done? The answer is, a new social system brings along with it, a new code of morals; you suppose that labor alone produces wealth, idleness produces rot, and currently the hands of labor are empty, while the capitalists lay idle. To bring about progress to a socialist, all private ownership of capital/land must be transferred/confiscated to the hands of labor...its rightful owner. In justification, two things must happen. One, a social revolution must be either declared or used to justify the illegality of the act (theft), and an end is needed to illustrate the need for the means. The end, which is defined now as "for the middle class", used to be called "the working class" and a hundred years ago it was eloquently cloaked as "The requirements of the working class demand a different state of society." The next step is to claim that socialism is the highest expression of morality and justice...which is part two...the taking of the capital and emancipation of it from the shackles of private ownership.
This second part is happening every day, right in front of us, and on facebook. For instance, when a Libertarian says, "the role of the federal gov't is not to provide food or shelter for the poor", he/she is bombarded with knee jerk phrases from "You hate kids, you want people to die" to "Oh, what would you rather have, people dying in the streets, you monster." This type of reaction is the defense of the indefensible. Instead of arguing the point (is the federal gov't the best or appropriate provider of food or shelter), they try to say you are against the end result of having people fed or housed. This is a needed response to a socialist, because the argument against the federal gov't role in providing is not able to be won by the socialist. Clearly, the constitution says, in the tenth amendment, that anything not enumerated in the constitution as a role of the federal gov't shall be left to the states, and the people, respectively. So, we do provide for shelter and food...but not at the federal gov't. Is the socialist against communities taking care of their own? Well, no, not necessarily...but their whole goal isn't to take care of the people...it is to consolidate power in a central location so they don't have to fight this fight in the neighborhoods and states. In this endeavor, they have succeeded. So, what is the point of fighting socialism if we have to do it on their terms, with their definitions and under their control. BINGO. It isn't worth fighting there.
The beauty of the American way of life is the simplicity with which the constitution was written. The federal gov't is not able to check houses in Maine, Florida, Alaska and New Mexico...they must rely on states and local gov't to do the dirty work for them. There are many ways the new progressive and old socialist can facilitate this. Taxes. The federal gov't lays taxes, then gives back to states who do their bidding. The ACA is reliant upon people filing their taxes and providing proof of insurance. The tea party, in its original form, was a direct attack on the principles of big gov't...it went after taxes. The new tea party that cares more about abortion and gays than it does kneecapping the goliath federal gov't has become nothing more than a sideshow for the socialist to make fun of...but the original tea party scared the living bejeezus out of them. I'll leave this point unfinished...because it is not up to me to convince anyone that a revolution is needed to defeat what has already been a victory for socialism. The victory was won in the courts, the legislature and the executive branch of the federal gov't...and trying to refight this in those arenas is fruitless. We will stay in this type of gov't, regardless of the words of Ted Cruz or John McCain...the GOP is not trying to reverse anything done over the past 100 years...they simply are running a campaign to manage it.
I don't want managed socialism...I want an open air, out in the public, up and down the street revolution. I want people to know that the status quo is an affront to my rights. I want every Republican that supports what we have now, to be labeled a traitor to the "Republic". I am not, nor will I ever be, OK with confiscation, regardless of the children or the sick or the old that it is supposed to help. There is ample evidence that the sick, the children and the elderly are suffering under the thumb of socialism in small steps, and the argument is not about your goals or your ends...it is precisely about your methods. In short...do not tell me to support any more smaller evils...I am not going to contribute to the system that enslaves me for my own good. Pick a side, you can't hide anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment