The Law: The Socialists
by PubliusFrom The Law, by Frederic Bastiat:
How did politicians ever come to believe this weird idea that the law could be made to produce what it does not contain — the wealth, science, and religion that, in a positive sense, constitute prosperity? Is it due to the influence of our modern writers on public affairs?
Present-day writers — especially those of the socialist school of thought — base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general — with the exception of the writer himself — from the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most important group. Surely this is the weirdest and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!
In fact, these writers on public affairs begin by supposing that people have within themselves no means of discernment; no motivation to action. The writers assume that people are inert matter, passive particles, motionless atoms, at best a kind of vegetation indifferent to its own manner of existence. They assume that people are susceptible to being shaped — by the will and hand of another person — into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected.
Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental affairs hesitates to imagine that he himself — under the title of organizer, discoverer, legislator, or founder — is this will and hand, this universal motivating force, this creative power whose sublime mission is to mold these scattered materials — persons — into a society.
These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws, and school laws.
The Socialists Wish to Play God
Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.
In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals — the farmer wastes some seeds and land — to try out an idea.
But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!
It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator’s genius. This idea — the fruit of classical education — has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.
Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man — and a principle of discernment in man’s intellect — they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.
The Socialists Despise Mankind
According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men — governors and legislators — the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.
Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our country is this idea — the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
52 Comments
Socialism is a religion… prepare for the next inquisition.
An incredible essay. To think that an 1850 composition could so completely speak to today's America is just amazing. Take the time to read the entire work.
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
True and also frightening….
I suppose we live in interisting times…
Misanthopy is the new religion, politicians its adherents and citizens the losers, unless…….
A timely reminder that we need to take this Socialist bull by the horns and stomp it out of the U.S.A! – - for ourselves, our children, our family, and for our active Military,and those whose blood has been shed fighting this oppression!- – A Memorial Day pledge.
"According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men — governors and legislators — the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race."
Yes Hobbe's fallacy. If the world is full of evil people and government is required to keep these people in line then what happens when those very same people become the government. That's like the prisoners of a prison guarding each other. What changes when one becomes a government official? NOTHING.
And you'll notice socialists/progressives always have the attitude that these rules do NOT apply to them. Everyone is evil EXCEPT them.
You CANNOT plan a society without imposing one narrow view upon everyone else. Any plan will always be a special interests plan. Socialism IS the destruction of liberty and what's sad is progressives KNOW this but wish to pursue this path.
Bastiat is a great author. Also note that he was writing about socialism centuries ago. Socialism ISN'T NEW. There is nothing NEW about it. That's why its funny to hear prgressives brag about progress. Socialism is NOT progress.
This line is so condemning…
"According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men — governors and legislators — the exact opposite inclinations,"
Heaven's well seems to have run dry of these kinds of men. There are only a handful in all the House, and Senate that will stand and speak out against this creeping Socialism.
I despise the shameful cowardice, and timid self interest of most Republican political leaders.
The Democrats are the enemy. And Marxist / Socialism is their goal.
"They assume that people are susceptible to being shaped — by the will and hand of another person — into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected."
I know, let's travel to the Soviet Union and ask one of those innumerable New Soviet Men.
Oh.
Wait.
Code usually means law, so I assume this refers to the type of legal system that is used. That is, it means "Code in this country: common law, socialist law, or Islamic law." The way it is written is confusing, because it looks like a list of four items, but I think it is a three-item list with a leader (code).
For any of you who haven't heard of Bastiat and haven't read "The Law" – please go and read this book ASAP. You can find it for free by doing a simple google search for "The Law Bastiat" or something similar. Or you can buy a copy and read it in about an hour, maybe two. I have read many books about liberty and freedom and I can't list them all, but I can tell you that this is the best one out there.
Also, unlike most of the current political books, "The Law" doesn't just rail against Democrats (Socialists) the whole time as this one passage would indicate. Instead, "The Law" outlines the natural justification for right and wrong, and educates the reader on the fundamental concept that Law doesn't come from man or from written documents, Law comes from nature. Law isn't created, Law just is. Once you understand that one concept, you'll be shocked and horrified at just how screwed we are.
I just wish people would realize this point, because they never seem to.
Politicians are ALL evil. Every last one of them. They all want to CONTROL you. That is evil.
Government is a parasite and is nothing more than legalized plunder. It's not like the US government is any different.
Ghosts Of Independence: Old Ink, Eternal Ideals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEdLPq9YSlU
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington
That was very well put – socialism believes humanity is inherently evil and must be controlled (for the greater good of course). The believers or freedom believe man is inherently good and as such only limited government is required. The question is – is what side of the equation are most Americans on given the intellectual and educational pollution of the past 100 years or so? I believe most have seen seen thru the BS but that's just me.
obama commies outright stealing from us and not even hiding it shows they have no fear of you
The defense bill that just passed the House of Representatives includes a back-door fund that lets individual members of Congress funnel millions of dollars into projects of their choosing.
This is happening despite a congressional ban on earmarks — special, discretionary spending that has funded Congress' pet projects back home in years past, but now has fallen out of favor among budget-conscious deficit hawks.
Under the cloak of a mysteriously-named "Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund," Congress has been squirreling away money — like $9 million for "future undersea capabilities development," $19 million for "Navy ship preliminary design and feasibility studies," and more than $30 million for a "corrosion prevention program."
So in a year dominated by demands for spending cuts, where did all the money come from?
Politics: Loophole for earmarks?
Roughly $1 billion was quietly transferred from projects listed in the president's defense budget and placed into the "transfer fund." This fund, which wasn't in previous year's defense budgets (when earmarks were permitted), served as a piggy bank from which committee members were able to take money to cover the cost of programs introduced by their amendments.
And take they did.
More than $600 million went to a wide number of projects, many of which appear to directly benefit some congressional districts over others.
For example, that $9 million for "future undersea capabilities development" was requested by Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Connecticut, whose district happens to be home to General Dynamics Electric Boat, a major supplier of submarines and other technologies to the U.S. Navy.
And the $19 million for "Navy ship preliminary design and feasibility studies"? Rep. Steve Palazzo, R-Mississippi, asked for that. His district's largest employer is Ingalls Shipbuilding — a major producer of surface combat ships for the Navy.
Nothing in these expenditures appears to be illegal, but critics say they still may violate the spirit, if not the language, of the earmark ban.
"These amendments may very likely duck the House's specific definition of what constitutes an earmark, but that doesn't mean they aren't pork," says Leslie Paige of Citizens Against Government Waste, a government-spending watchdog group. The group believes if modification of the National Defense Authorization Act generated savings, that money should have been put toward paying down the deficit.
In their defense, supporters say the amendments offered by various members may very well represent good governance. The $30 million Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, set aside for corrosion prevention could go far to help tackle the Defense Department's corrosion problem, estimated to cost the military more than $15 billion a year.
However, there are two things worth considering: Sutton's request comes on top of the $10 million already included in the bill for corrosion related programs, and Sutton's district is home to The University of Akron, which created the country's first bachelor's degree program for corrosive engineering in 2008.
Then, on May 9, two days before the defense bill mark-up, it was announced that the Defense Department had given the University of Akron $11 million to build its new "National Center for Education and Research in Corrosion and Materials Performance."
Sutton was the biggest supporter of that new spending.
Glenn Beck said one time that he'd thought about finding some deserted island and starting over. I'm sure lots have said that, even most of you, but take the Einstein thought experiment one step further, and you have the problem again. Why? Buckaroo Banzai. "No matter where you go, there you are." Turns out he was smarter than he thought, Buckaroo. Why? Because socialism lives in all of us.
You see, you are a liberal.
Compared to someone, you are more liberal than they are. Somewhere, while you're writing the story of how government should be, you'll reject one guy's socialism for your own. Everyone will have one or two things that it's okay to go ahead and take a little freedom back in order to stop.
But unless you understand the basic concept of law, as Bastiat does, you can't possibly understand how socialist we already are. In the very act of having lawyers, police, etc., we have socially engineered. How can you tell? Go to Bastiat's basics. Law of the collective comes from the law of the individual. The collective should not be able to do anything that I can't also do. Yet, is that what we have? No. We have an overreaching government. The real problem is, everyone out there wants to remove some of it, but not all of it, and the part they want to remain is different for everyone.
It was truly a treat to read through "The Law." How utterly simple it is to recognize the value of individual freedom, as opposed to the "enlightened dictates" of an elite ruling class. This 1850 essay reads like a 21st century treatise on the evils of "progressivism" in the modern world. Some things, I guess, never change.
That entire quote is crap, from beginning to end.
First of all, he makes a strawman. Socialism does not assume that mankind is evil, and I dare him to show me the evidence, for if evidence of imperfection and need of governance is evidence of evil, then we are all, indeed, the spawn of Satan himself.
He then does the Alinsky thing, by ridiculing any man who might elevate himself to the position of governance, even elected, one would have to assume, since that is the way of most legislators, to be elected first.
Again, he ridicules their motives ("for the sake of the rest of the world!") with no more than an exlamation point (which has considerably more substance than his actual implication). But what motives should a politician have, if not for the sake of his constituents? Do you yourself not see that some men are virtuous while some are inherently evil, that some will prepare themselves for higher office, whether it be public or private, and those are EXACTLY the men (and women) who should be in charge? To go along with this class warfare response to class warfare is to fall for the same trap. Of course there will be those who are better, better prepared, better gifted.
It is in violating another man's right to be wrong that they fail, and become socialists, with the social engineering in mind. When you make a law or give a tax break to affect someone's behavior, you are being a socialist. When he says "While mankind turns toward evil, the legislators yearn for good", it should actually read "While some of mankind turns toward evil, other parts turn towards good governance, order, stability, and the rule of law." Completely accurate, and only when those who turn to evil become those who are in charge of maintaining order and stability do we have a problem.
"The Tree of Liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of Patriots and tyrants alike". T. Jefferson
The entire pamphlet is hyperlinked at the top of this post in blue…
Here it is again for any who missed the link, its well worth taking the time to read it.
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
(……) and only when those who turn to evil become those who are in charge of maintaining order and stability do we have a problem.
We are at that point now.
Have been since 2006.
Socialism does not assume that mankind is evil,
Really?
What comes out of every Democratic Politician's mouth? What is spouted on every leftist media outlet? Whomever so much as looks cross-eyed at the Almighty Lightbringer of the Links is castigated, ridiculed, and called…..
a hater, ….a racist,……a uncultured buffoon.
For calling out the uncultured buffoon we have as a President who can''t be bothered to act like the Prime Representative of this country and respect other nations.
You call an idiot, an idiot.
First of all, he makes a strawman. Socialism does not assume that mankind is evil, and I dare him to show me the evidence, for if evidence of imperfection and need of governance is evidence of evil, then we are all, indeed, the spawn of Satan himself.
You just stated why its evil. The NEED for governance. People don't NEED governance. The vast majority of people peacefully go about their business. And MOST certainly people do not need their lives planned. There is NO SOCIAL GOAL only the accumulation of individual desires.
He then does the Alinsky thing, by ridiculing any man who might elevate himself to the position of governance, even elected, one would have to assume, since that is the way of most legislators, to be elected first. Yes he ridicules any man who believes they can govern others, plan their lives, decide for people what people need.
Again, he ridicules their motives ("for the sake of the rest of the world!") with no more than an exlamation point (which has considerably more substance than his actual implication). But what motives should a politician have, if not for the sake of his constituents?The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And WHICH constituents? The majority who vote for slavery? The ones with the most money or power? No social plan is possible without imposing only one view upon everyone else.
Do you yourself not see that some men are virtuous while some are inherently evil, that some will prepare themselves for higher office, whether it be public or private, and those are EXACTLY the men (and women) who should be in charge? I do see a distinction between good and evil men BUT the good man has no more right to rule over me than the evil one. I rule myself. I decide for myself. I plan MY life and I voluntarily agree or disagree to follow someone's leadership. A good man does not mean that man can RULE over anyone else. The very idea of ruling over others is itself inherently evil.
o go along with this class warfare response to class warfare is to fall for the same trap. Of course there will be those who are better, better prepared, better gifted.
and that is a moot point if we must follow them at the point of a gun. If its voluntary then I have no problem with it.
It is in violating another man's right to be wrong that they fail, and become socialists, with the social engineering in mind. When you make a law or give a tax break to affect someone's behavior, you are being a socialist. When he says "While mankind turns toward evil, the legislators yearn for good", it should actually read "While some of mankind turns toward evil, other parts turn towards good governance, order, stability, and the rule of law." Completely accurate, and only when those who turn to evil become those who are in charge of maintaining order and stability do we have a problem.
It is impossible to be a politician without the sway of power creating evil. There are no "good" rulers. If that were the case then the socialists would be correct that there exists "the right people" to plan everyone's life. What is to stop a politician from imposing his narrow plan upon the rest so he may better do his job at running the people? A great deal of atrocities are committed by well intentioned people imposing their will upon others in the name of a better world.
A politician is a person with 100% power and little to no accountability. That is moral hazard. I do not believe a man can be good if he believes he can rule you or I.
innumerable New Soviet Men.
Postponed indefinitely.
On account of Reagan.
I read a treatise by him some time ago. Very good.
I believe the Socialists describe themselves accurately. Imbecile comes to mind.
The Soviets in the fifties used to say they would get to us through our children. Schools today are not teaching the dangers of Socialism or Communism, or even WW2 for that matter. Kids today have no idea of what the Iron Curtain was, or why America was such an unusual idea at it's beginning. They are being indoctrinated with a different kind of Social Studies than we knew.
Publius,
I must commend whomever came up with the idea to use "The Law", by Frederic Bastiat as a conversational topic here. It is an excellent idea, and could be expounded upon to create a lot of interesting dialogue, and the exchange of ideas and opinion.
I remember "back in the day" when this outfit was young, and just getting off the ground, that on the weekends, you used to have threads discussing the various Federalist Papers. A lot of people interacted and participated. Frankly, I miss such informative topics.
Thank you.
There's going to be another one after this one???
Change "they would arrive at atheism instead of religion" to "they would arrive at religion instead of atheism" (i.e. flip the words around), and this could have been written today.
1. The Socialists Wish to Play God
2. The Socialists Despise Mankind
3. …they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon.
All three points very very true. Focusing in on point 3 and in the spirit of "experimentation, research, and hard QUANTITATIVE data. Should the socialist ilk gain a temporary tyrannical influence upon the populace, it will be time they become the object of experimentation to determine the "optimum caliber."
Which number works best?
.223?
.308?
30-06?
.300 (magnum)?
.357 (magnum)?
.38?
.380
.40?
.45?
.50?
9mm?
00?
I have absolutely no idea what number would work best for these well intentioned tyrants. We'll just have to find out I guess. After all, testing and experimentation trumps opinion any day. i remember one of my profs in grad school telling me that. He could be right.
<DIV>”You just stated why its evil.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>I said “(if) need of governance is evidence of evil, then we are all, indeed, the spawn of Satan himself.”</DIV> <DIV>So, we are evil because we need governance? Because he was talking about mankind being evil, not socialism.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”The NEED for governance. People don't NEED governance.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Please show me one place on planet earth where people don't have governance. Freely elected, and as soon as they declare independence from someone, they set up a government, officially, when there was already a working government while declaring independence. Just one. Anywhere in history.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”The vast majority of people peacefully go about their business.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Only because there are those governing the day to day business of defence, roads, schools, etc.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”And MOST certainly people do not need their lives planned. There is NO SOCIAL GOAL only the accumulation of individual desires.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>No social goals? What about education? What about rooting for your team, or joining the local softball league? What about making your community safer and cleaner? When was the last time YOU planned on going downtown to pick up paper? Because it IS planned or it IS NOT DONE.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”Yes he ridicules any man who believes they can govern others, plan their lives, decide for people what people need.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Which is rich, because those men are elected. We all require it, and someone has to do that job, but yet, he ridicules THAT MAN without even knowing who that man is. What's really the richest part of all is that you do too, without even knowing why. And it's your blind acceptance without understanding that endangers us all, and turns out socialist after socialist after socialist. Or did you not realize you were socially engineering?</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>So, all good intentions are simply trips to hell? This is what happens when you try to use cliches out of place. That statement merely lessens the defence of “I intended good”. Here, no one is offering any defence except that governance is required, and you attack simply because a thing is, calling it evil because of it's existence.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”And WHICH constituents?”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Those that voted him into office. If you are going to be willfully stupid or intellectually dishonest, we can end this right here. You've already demonstrated you not only have no clue what I said, but you understand little of what Bastiat said.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”The majority who vote for slavery?”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Intellectual dishonesty. So now, you're against democracy?</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”The ones with the most money or power?”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Right. Now we know you're a liberal socialist. Class warfare is your game.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”No social plan is possible without imposing only one view upon everyone else.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Right. Guess what. There are some views we can push upon everyone else, like, you can't steal, and you can't murder. This is not social engineering. To listen to you, we shouldn't have ANY government whatsoever. Are you an anarchist?</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”I do see a distinction between good and evil men BUT the good man has no more right to rule over me than the evil one. I rule myself. I decide for myself. I plan MY life and I voluntarily agree or disagree to follow someone's leadership. A good man does not mean that man can RULE over anyone else. The very idea of ruling over others is itself inherently evil.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>It's called civilization, feel free to leave it whenever you wish. But don't think for a second that you can have all that it offers and obey none of it's laws. Again, what you speak of is anarchy for you, but rules for everyone else, like, they can't do anything to you, but you don't have to obey anyone else's laws (no man rules over me, right?).</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”and that is a moot point if we must follow them at the point of a gun. If its voluntary then I have no problem with it.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>You've had a problem with it up until now, unless, of course, you're assuming we elect an already corrupt and evil government from day one. Of course, this would have to assume that mankind is inherently evil…..not to consistent here, are we?</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”It is impossible to be a politician without the sway of power creating evil.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>So the moment anyone runs for office, they are evil, and not qualified. Got it. You don't vote much, do you? Else, how do you explain voting for someone who is evil?</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”There are no “good” rulers.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Anarchist.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”If that were the case then the socialists would be correct that there exists “the right people” to plan everyone's life.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Why does it have to be “the right people” or nobody? Why can't it just be the guy who got elected, and we ALL govern ourselves a little bit, too? Can you not live in a world with abstracts and vague definitions? Because if you can't, you have no right to define and decide the color in my world along with yours. Why do they have to “plan everyone's life”? Can you not argue without creating strawmen? They don't plan everyone's life, only how they'll react to zebra crossings, or how they'll act on the road, or a thousand other such rules we make just to keep order, in order for people to go about their lives not worrying that someone will drive on the wrong side of the road just because that's the way they did it in their country.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”What is to stop a politician from imposing his narrow plan upon the rest so he may better do his job at running the people?”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Uh, there's the US Code, State and local laws, and, last but not least, the people, who can vote him out of office, recall him, impeach him, and prosecute him. Of course, that's all social engineering to you, probably.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”A great deal of atrocities are committed by well intentioned people imposing their will upon others in the name of a better world.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>I'll be you're guilty of your share, too. But if you refuse governance based upon the few dictators and madmen, then you'll support anarchy at every turn. Of course, I forgot, we decided that you ARE an anarchist.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”A politician is a person with 100% power and little to no accountability.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Only in your world. In my world, this only happens when people like you tell us there is nothing we can do and sit on the sidelines because you don't want us to go to extremes.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”That is moral hazard.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Yes, anarchists with their heads in the sand is a definite moral hazard.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>”I do not believe a man can be good if he believes he can rule you or I.”</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>That's the difference. I believe it's what's in a man's heart that matters. If he is elected, and rules according to the desires of his constituents, the US Code, and basic human nature, then how can you call him evil just because he's taken on the job demanded by the public to be done, and done by someone, and that same public has elected him. Absent evidence of corruption or criminal behavior, you have to support him or actively act to remove him and place in charge someone who governs more closely to YOUR ideals. Otherwise, you are on the sidelines flinging crap, and doing no one any good, least of all your country.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>—
perhaps the 1 billion transfer fund is his 2012 election campaign war chest???? they say he wants to raise 1 billion for 2012 ??he may have already stashed the billions lost or missing from all the tarp bailout and stimilus scams???they should be treated as bank robbers and be shot for all the looting over the years.
<DIV>Picture a marble in a bowl. It is always trying to find the bottom, but with forces constantly acting upon it, it will move around.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>An oligarchy is the only possible form of governing. It can take several forms, and this is the ball moving around. Call it this, call it that, one is repressive, one is weak, one is aggressive. Each have their failings, for in going further towards any direction, you move up the side of the bowl, where it takes more and more enegy to move less and less distance, eventually the natural forces winning anyway and the marble running back towards the bottom. We must govern the ball, but we must govern it as little as possible. With such governance, corruption breeds like bacteria in a petri dish, the perfect breeding ground. Individual freedom means individuals can be abused, because they have something to lose and will trade some of those freedoms for security. Men will take advantage of this, but they will go too far up the bowl, and it will crash around them.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>The secret is to decentralize authority as much as possible, but, to get it where it needs to be, man must be better at self-governance. We haven't reached that point yet, though we are evolving slowly. Politics, I think, is the last battle. The natural order of things, the bottom of the bowl, is for a conspiracy exist in ruling the world. However, the more this conspiracy exists and demands to be priority, the more it spells it's own demise. If it could learn to govern world wide affairs benignly, with openness and participation by the people, then it is necessary, which is why, after being destroyed utterly, another will begin to reform almost immediately. It is the natural order of things.—
protocols of the learned elders of zion outlines the similar game plan ,indoctrinate generations of children over the years to their (communist) point of view,use the media (t.v. and newspapers,etc.) to bend opinion in your favor while preventing any factual information getting out,there are so many sneakey ploys for creeping communism,most people are gullible and take everything at face value,i tell everybody dont just watch the puppet show,peek behind the curtain to see whos really pulling the strings.
an old vietnam era saying 'WHEN YOU GOT THEM BY THE BALLS ,THEIR HEARTS AND MINDS WILL FOLLOW" THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO DEFEAT PROGRESSIVE COMMUNISTS politically correct, kissing ass, like mr rodgers'WILL YOU BE MY FRIEND" INDOCTRINATION WON'T GET IT DONE!!
Someone (I forget who) suggested, several years ago, that ALL candidates for public office be required to read "The Law". I could not agree more. This essay can be downloaded from the Internet and is an important read for all citizens, as well. For any who have not read it, please do.
I second bringing back something like that. Maybe even reprint some essay's on the Federalist Papers from Janine Turner's http://www.constitutingamerica.org site to discuss.
You have it right on the head of the nail.
Socialism is also a form of Mysticism which religion also is.
Unless we are willing to fight against this Mysticism and it's Siamese brother Fascism, we will be totally enslaved within a very short time.
Death to Tyrants!
it is increasingly apparent that the People to maintain their Constitutional Freedoms and Liberties may very well have to go beyond the ballot box.
Death to Tyrants!
Mr Rogers was a second WW war hero.
It is also increasingly ap[parent that the People have forgotten what rope is for.
Death to Tyrants and Corrupt on the Take Politicians!
pathological altruism is also part of the progressive make-up which allow the ends to justify the means.
progressivism = totalitarianism
the "one" is DONE
the "O" has got to GO
http://www.theomustgo.blogspot.com
The idea of Uniting Humanity for a Cause isn't new at all. That was the rally cry at the Tower of Babel, and it was a Rally without God. The God, they remembered who destroyed mankind with a flood.
In the Bible is the word "Man Kind"…Today we use the word "Hu-Man"…The ancient meaning of the word "Hu" means a mixing together…let's say Homogenizations.
Marx said that people are like bricks, and not usefull unless they are joined into His Wall of groups, with the "Mortar" being money…and The foundation for his society is Money.
In contrast, N.T. Believers are called "Lively Stones" and part of a stucture "cemented together" with Scriptural, spiritual thoughts…Each to have a Devine Destiny to fullfill.
Marx treats only our body and mind.
God of the scriptures is interested in our body and mind, as well as soul and spirit.
Bastiat should be required in every high school, together with Toqueville and Hayek. The continued political existence of the Left can be attributed entirely to the ignorance of far too great a part of the electorate.
Like pappy always said, there is a proper tool for each unique job…
For the time being, I'm clinging to the notion that the current climate has produced an awakening such that a bb* will suffice.
* Ballot box
You know, I think some parts of the world need socialism! Just hear me out before you all vote me down. One morning, I was hungry and thirsty for some Einsteins bagels and coffee, as they do make a good bagel and coffee. Well, it just so happened there was a French man in front of me, and he couldn't decide for his life what bagel he wanted. The very freedom of being able to choose what type of bagel he wanted seemed so alien to him!
Think of the utterly dependent and brainless who cannot think for themselves or make their own choices when presented with choice!
Thank you, I have downloaded it and am reading it on my Kindle. It's excellent. Thanks to Big Govt for introducing me to this writer.
Communists themselves see Socialism as the first step toward communism; Sort of a Communism Lite. The have a concept in which Communism "adavances" to such a state Governemnt is no longer needed. To where every person is so wonderfully programed and attuned to the needs of society they just wake up and start providing it in a friction free way, all day long!
They really believe such a state CAN be arrived at.
But if you look at any of the many communist and socialist nations at no time does the Govenrment or leaders declare WE ARE THERE! And just step aside. Never. Rather, they are perpetually increasing their authority within and waging war (even a "peace") in expansionist mode. They never quit. Back off.
The fact is there is no qualified total communist leader to run a perfectly communist state so it ends up that dictators and totalitarians end up at the top of the pyramid scheme! And instead of declaring WE'RE THERE they set about kicking everyone around to make them pretend communism works! And pretend they like it, too.
The universal excuse within communist preaching is: It WILL work when it is GLOBAL!And until it's global it can't be perfect.
If we understand it as a fraud then we better understand the people trying to sell it to us.
I agree. Ballot boxes are much much more preferred. But keep your options open. Remember, The Second Amendment IS NOT about hunting.
no disrespect to war heros,just remembering indoctrination of children ,barney (purple dinosaur,etc)to brainwash kids to accept socialism,dont fight for whats right,just go back to sleep,everythings just peachey crap.
the world will be a much better and less corrupt place if we start bringing all communists to room temperature,those that escape will get religion and wont surface for a very long time!!
"Socialism ISN'T NEW. There is nothing NEW about it. That's why its funny to hear prgressives brag about progress. Socialism is NOT progress."
Exactly right. Socialism is the same kind of gov't mankind has had for millenia, just dressed up slightly differently so that people can pretend that they are actually "voting" on something, or actually in control when they are not.
Liberty is always in danger of being destroyed. It is the age old battle of good v. evil.
Cheers and thanks for sharing! http://www.skateshoesbuy.org
You must be logged in to post a comment.