Posts

by on

“Ron Paul: Barack Obama is Not a Socialist.“

He says: “In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,”

I’m not sure what definition Paul is using here; but I think Socialism is so broad it’s hard to say for sure that Obama isn’t one. Obama may secretly wish to have the State take ownership of all the factors of production but he hasn’t done it yet, though, so we can’t call him a Socialist on that basis. That said, I’m pretty sure Obama does believe that the income which accrues to private firms and individuals must sometimes be redistributed in the interest of the “greater good” or, more technically, to “maximize social welfare.”

Obama is probably a market socialist of some sort. This is not a terribly unusual position for a U.S. politician; in fact, Paul is probably one of the few politicians who doesn’t fall into this category. Of course, none of them would ever dare describe themselves as such–generally, when they’re advancing Socialist/redistributionist ideas, politicians tend to use the language of the Bible. (Hence Obama’s frequent use of the phrase: “I am my brother’s keeper.”)

One huge mistake people make is to act like Obama is the first guy in U.S. history to ever advocate redistributing wealth for what he thinks is “the greater good”. He’s not close to it. Theodore Roosevelt was a progressive corporate regulator type. FDR implemented Social Security. Lyndon Johnson had his Socialist “Great Society”, a term which ought to give any individualist a fright.

 Republicans cheerfully point this stuff out to show how the Democratic Party is all secretly a bunch of Socialists. But here’s a little something they might want to think on: What’s more radical than market Socialism? Non-market Socialism! That’s where the market isn’t even involved in determining prices. Who imposed price
controls in the United States? Republican President Richard M. Nixon.

Back to Ron Paul for a minute: He says: “[Obama’s] a corporatist,”  and “[He takes] care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

That sounds like something Michael Moore would say. And it’s incorrect. I think he must be thinking of George W. Bush. But it leads nicely into my point about how Republican economic Socialism works.

When Republicans redistribute the wealth for the “Greater Good”, it generally involves giving it to either corporations or particular kinds of Churches, rather than other entities–individuals, non-profits, etc. They are particularly fond of paying money to corporations that make weapons, or, in one infamous instance, secret mercenary corporations.

Some may debate whether this practice is technically Socialism or technically Fascism. In my view, Fascism is nothing more than a particularly militaristic brand of Socialism, so it makes little difference. The point is that both sides are redistributing wealth in order to serve society as a whole.

I’ve quoted him before, and I’ll quote him here:

“If we allow that Socialism (in the ethical, not the economic, sense) is that world-feeling which seeks to carry out its own views on behalf of all, then we are all without exception, willingly or no, wittingly or no, Socialists…. All world-improvers are Socialists.”–Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West.

To which I would add only that if you already have a Socialist “ethic”, and you become a powerful politician who can influence aspects of the economy, it is virtually impossible not to become an “economic” Socialist as well.

What bothers me about the quote from Paul is that he’s poking around the edges of a very deep insight into the truth of how the American political parties really act, whatever they may claim they believe. But he has somehow gotten things completely backwards.

by on

Quoth the Palin:

“It’s kind of like getting out there on a playground, a bunch of kids, getting ready to fight, and one of the kids saying, ‘Go ahead, punch me in the face and I’m not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me,'”

And Obama’s response:

“I would say to them is that if the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff are comfortable with it, I’m probably going to take my advice from them and not from Sarah Palin,”

It’s hard to argue with Obama’s logic. (Although I have heard that the Secretary of Defense is against certain parts of the policy.)

My assumption is that there is all sorts of behind-the-scenes gamesmanship, and that the information which goes out to us private citizens (which Palin is, let it not be forgotten) is not even half of the story. Nuclear strategy involves lots of game theory, and I figure the information that governments put out is probably designed to influence the behavior of other “players”, rather than accurately describe its own behavior.

by on

See here for the original post on this subject.

It’s difficult, of course, to define “radical” exactly. Are we talking about someone who is radical in his religious beliefs, his personal conduct, or merely his governing philosophy? Can a President be “radical” if he embraces a fringe view of economic policy, even if he is more or less “mainstream” on foreign policy?

Furthermore, a President’s own ideas are not always implemented; a radical man may implement mainstream policies because it is all he can get. Politics is the art of compromise, and so it is difficult to say with assurance which Presidents believed what radical ideas in their heart while never implementing them, and which Presidents were mainstream men, forced by circumstance to take radical action.

In assessing this, therefore, I based it off of Gingrich’s implicit assumption that “Socialism” is radical, and that the most Socialist President was the most radical. Furthermore, I assessed it based purely on the basis of the  policies implemented or attempted by Presidents, not anything they said or wrote about their policies.

With all this in mind, I conclude that the most radical President ever is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The policies he implemented were at first Socialistic (The New Deal) and, by World War II, had about them hints of Fascism. The expansion of government under Roosevelt was unprecedented, and his proposed “Second Bill of Rights” implied that government was obligated to provide things such as jobs, health care etc. for the people. Meanwhile, Social Security and the general expansion of the Welfare State, were ideas that owed much to Otto von Bismarck. (It was these policies of Bismarck’s that helped make “European Socialism” a commonplace phrase.)

As for his Fascist tendencies, FDR implemented the internment of German, Italian and Japanese Americans, an idea we commonly would associate with Fascism. In addition, when World War II broke out, almost all healthy young men were drafted to serve in the military. The draft is an idea wholly alien to the free-market approach to economics, and it is, at its core, a request to sacrifice the individual for the sake of the “greater good”. Socialism, in a word.

A President whose policies were a mixture of Socialistic class-warfare and Fascistic actual warfare; is that radical enough for you?

by on

He goes on to say that Obama runs a “secular, socialist machine.”

The obvious question is: who held the title of “Most radical President” before him? So, whatever you think of Obama aside; who, in your opinion, is the most radical President ever?

I have my answer, but I’m going to wait awhile to see what other people think before I post it.

by on

So Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell declared April. According to the article, the move “angered Civil Rights’ leaders”. But my question is: what about the average, everyday, patriotic American? Surely they were angered as well.

Some background: The Confederate States of America was a government established in 1861 by states that had declared they were seceding from the Union. The Union being the United States of America. Long story short, the USA fought the CSA, and the USA won, forcing the CSA to be dissolved.

Now, what seems fairly obvious from this discussion is that the CSA was, at best, an enemy nation of the USA throughout its brief existence, and at worst was nothing more than a gang of traitors. You might think that this would make them an unpopular bunch, but you would be wrong: lots of people are very eager to celebrate them, apparently because their ancestors fought for them.

Okay, that’s nice. But perhaps it should be American Civil War history month; not Confederate history. A lot of people–supposedly patriotic US citizens–seem to forget just who won the war. Hint: it was the country that still exists.

Now, I do not know if there is a “Loyalist History month” in Massachusetts for those who supported remaining loyal to King George III. Is there a history month of any of the other enemy nations we have fought in the past? Think of all the governments we’ve fought: Britain’s (twice), Germany’s (twice), North Korea’s, North Vietnam’s, and the Communist Soviet Union’s, to name a few. When are the months for those governments? (Remember: the German Monarchy and the Third Reich each have to get their own month, as they are two separate governments. We’re going to have to add some months pretty soon.)

Yeah, yeah I know. You say: “But the Confederacy was on land that is now U.S. territory; so it’s part of our history.” Yes, it is. So, while it is truly part of Virginia’s history, Virginia must realize it is a part of the U.S.A, and that this other country is long gone. “We” are not the CSA. We are the USA, and “we” should have “Preservation of the Union month”.

There is a monument, sometimes called the Saratoga Obelisk, which commemorates the Battle of Saratoga in the American Revolution. On it are four niches, three of which hold statues of officers from the American side. The fourth niche is empty. It is for Benedict Arnold, who played a major role in winning the battle for the Americans, but who later infamously betrayed George Washington and joined the British.

The reason I mention this is to illustrate how serious treason is, and how severely it should be looked on by history. That the Confederate States of America are treated so lightly is, I think, an extremely curious phenomenon given the indisputable fact that what they did, ultimately, was take up arms against the United States of America.

by on

This guy is challenging Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln in the primaries. Again, as is so often the case, neither has much in the way of charisma. (Halter reminds me of Bobby Jindal.) It’s important to bring these examples up to remind us of why charisma on an Obama or Palin level is such a powerful force.

by on

Yes.

It’s an issue that is currently being debated in California. To me, it’s hilarious that we’re still discussing this at all. Of course it should be legal. It’s ridiculous that there’s even a debate about it. Anyone over the age of 18 ought to be allowed walk into a store and buy as much as they can afford in any state in the U.S.

Now, let me clarify that I happen to think using marijuana, or any drug, is stupid. But so is drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. So, the only intellectually honest way to oppose legalizing marijuana is to also support the criminalization of alcohol and tobacco. (Though, as we should have learned, that’s unenforceable.) Otherwise, it’s just senseless support of whatever the random laws happen to be at present. If someone wants to poison himself by putting such substances in his body, how can we stop him?

Now, you might say that there are negative effects to third-parties as a result of people using marijuana. (What economists call “negative externalities”.) Yes, that’s true. But, again, that also is the case with alcohol and tobacco. Those are regulated substances. We as a society seem to have decided that we are willing to accept a certain number of deaths of innocent bystanders from drunk driving in exchange for being able to drink alcohol legally.

Some complain that marijuana is a “gateway drug” that will lead people to try harder drugs like cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Yeah, probably. So legalize those, too. Yes, some people will end up getting addicted to them and having their lives ruined. However, I suspect that once the thrill of doing something illegal is gone, a lot of the interest will fade and drug use will go down.

Furthermore, it’s impossible to prevent people from getting addicted to all sorts of weird stuff. People sniff glue, paint and who knows what else. People lick toads to get cool hallucinations. In other words, there is no way to stop this sort of thing from going on, so don’t waste your time on it. All it does is give people who aren’t willing to obey the law a source of revenue; while squandering the law-abiding citizen’s money on a “drug war” that cannot be won.