Thursday, November 2, 2017

The Trouble With Utopia

Image result for failed utopias

We already have "decreased individual freedom" right here in America.

Government CAN and (most of us claim "rightly") DOES mandate things like bicycle helmets, enforces seat belt laws, punishes public drinking (NOT "to excess," just public consumption of alcohol in many places), restricts smoking, etc.

IF we're going to have a healthcare system funded by taxpayer funds, then mandating restrictive, healthier diets, punishing unhealthy snacking and requiring a daily exercise regimen in order to deliver "maximum results for the taxpayer's investment in health" seems both legitimate and prudent.

When people accept benefits from any entity (an employer, for instance, or government) there IS a quid pro quo, whether it's stated, or not, whether it's enforced at a given point, or not.

The FACT CAN BE enforced at any given time.

Misinformed people just don't realize that.

It's like gun control. We actually HAVE more than enough LAWS to seriously restrict gun possession...we just haven't enforced them least, not yet.

Laws ALREADY ban mentally ill people from owning guns...NOT merely "buying guns," BUT even HAVING them.

Isn't PTSD a mental illness?

It sure is.

How about someone sentenced to "Anger Management" over a road rage, or domestic abuse issue? COULD they be classified as having a "mental/emotional illness," allowing that person's guns to be confiscated.

It would definitely seem so.

Much of this hasn't been done...YET, perhaps in order to preserve the illusion of "unbridled freedom," which we no longer have, nor deserve.

A dependent people (a people dependent upon government's business and education loans, grants, home mortgage and property tax deductions, Social Security, SSDI, Medicare, public assistance of all kinds, etc) are NOT and CANNOT BE a free people.

FREEDOM is the "fend-for-yourself" personal responsibility that a life without all those things (College loans, small business loans, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.) would entail.

So, yes, even though many of the quid pro quo's haven't been enforced...YET, doesn't negate government's right, nor ability to enforce them.

So what's the problem with greater government control over the economy?

We call the government-run economy the "Command Economy," and it's been tried many times, many ways and under varying conditions.

The primary problem the Command Economy faces is HUMAN NATURE.

Stalin killed all those Russians and Ukrainians over "land reform" because "none of those selfish bastards would just give up the land they owned and their family's developed. Mao killed all those small business owners because he KNEW they all were "incorrigible Capitalists." SAME with Hitler, the REAL sin of the Jews wasn't religion, nor their Leftist inclinations, it was that the Jew is incorrigible Capitalist at heart.

The biggest enemy of Marxists...true Marxists are owners/producers.

IF they would just surrender meekly and produce at maximum effort for minimum return, they could subsist under a system very close to chattel slavery...ironically enough, the enslavement of the producing class, the former ownership/landlord class, BUT people DON'T do that. They WON'T do, they have to be killed.

Marxism/Socialism/Collectivism CANNOT take hold absent the violent eradication of the producer/owner class.

After that, it's merely a matter of terrorizing the rest of the population to work 10, 12, 16 hours each day, 6 days a week to produce the bare minimum required for survival.

I have a Series 3 license. I've traded commodities and rarely currencies. I was once much less concerned about the Globalist/Unified Earth agenda. "How could it hurt?"

A single currency, a unifying set of laws, easy commercial access to trade across borders...SOUNDED GOOD.

Of course, I hadn't considered that a over 60% of today's world legitimizes chattel slavery, even more relegate women to a 2nd, or 3rd class status, most criminalize homosexuality. We WOULD NOT impose our morality on such a world in a "global democracy," THEY'D impose theirs on us!

There'd be a great chance for global tyranny, far greater than that of anything benevolent.

Generally religious people SHOULD BE Leftists. In fact, many are. That ALL aren't, I chalk up to poor outreach and poorer communication on the part of the Left.

I KNOW that I am NOT "my brother's keeper." We may have spiritual souls...who knows(?)...BUT we ARE corporeal beings, in these physical vessels and...."we all gotta eat," as they say.

I don't trust myself with much power over others, so I trust those who seek it (politicians) even less.

Weaponized Words

Image result for stifling dissent

There are people who look to "weaponize" words and use them to silence others (racist, Nazi, fascist, etc.)

Ironically enough, it's the people most prone to using words as weapons who most exude authoritarian ("Nazistic"/"fascistic") tendencies. They have a name for those who use such tactics, "Cry-bullies."

Most often they're hopelessly ignorant. Hopeless because they're not open to facts. People like that often see facts (FBI crime stats, actual race and gender wage scales, the science and math that prove Socialism's Command Economy CAN'T work, etc.) as "racist, sexist, homophobic, fascistic," etc.

They're so easily angered because, facts/reality undermine what they want to believe. Ironically enough, these people often claim to "support science" without understanding it.

They deride "faith-based" religious thinking in others, while engaging in it themselves. Science is never "settled." Most Climatologists DON'T agree with the Al Gore viewpoint. When presented with the views of those scientists, faith-based, emotional thinkers react like 16th Century religious fanatics did to heretics.

While I think an openness to dialogue and tolerance of all views is generally a good thing, what CAN'T be tolerated are those who'd seek to shut down others with weaponized words. They need to be called out on that and countered with facts, NOT as much for themselves (mostly they're hopeless), but so that other "emotional thinkers" aren't encouraged/emboldened by their successfully silencing others.

It would be one thing if such people were merely confused, but they generally tend to be hateful and meanspirited, as well. A combination that leads to their hopelessness.
American Ideas Click Here!