We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, October 8. 2021
There has always been national division about all sorts of things, from the time of the American revolution. Most Americans, or at least a large fraction, had no interest in separation from the crown. Disagreement is just natural but it sometimes seems surreal to me what people want from government. Like, everything they need including happiness. Good luck with that. Serfdom was a predictable life, but not something Americans wanted.
From Klavan, re national division:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I know how to absolutely fix the homeless crisis AND lower home prices and rent prices. Simple; a massive effort to find and deport anyone here illegally. No court, no hearing, once caught must be out of the country within 24 hours. Fine any employer who hires an illegal, fine anyone who "aids and abets" any illegal and offer rewards to anyone who turns in an illegal.
For extra benefit everyone/anyone who objects gets designated a domestic terrorist and is locked up in a DC jail, solitary confinement and denied bail.
It seems fitting that socialism is like the Hotel California.
I despise his writing. He's trying to do something he sucks at doing. He should just write instead of clinging to a gimmick.
Socialism, which centralizes power, leads to oppression and human misery.
Private property is a bulwark of liberty. The fallacy occurs when people equate democratic social welfare programs with states where the government controls all means of production. '
You don't get it. Do "democratic social welfare programs" require the the "taking" of assets by force from those who earned them and giving those assets to those unwilling to work for them? If this is true there is simply no defense, period!
OneGuy: Do "democratic social welfare programs" require the the "taking" of assets by force from those who earned them and giving those assets to those unwilling to work for them?
All taxes are a taking, and all government spending will have uneven benefits. The principle is "No taxation without representation!" The most successful modern economies are mixed economies, with strong social safety nets and robust markets. Are you saying that government has no legitimate power to help indigent elderly people, for instance?
"All taxes are a taking"
Indeed. There is a social contract that we, the people, elect/hire people to manage our government and we willingly tax ourselves to pay for things we have agreed to.
That is far different from the rogue government using that social contract against our will and taking our hard earned money to give away with the intent of buying votes.
What is worse is that IF these illegal Marxist programs worked at least at some point it wouldn't be necessary. But surprise, surprise, the Marxist welfare programs don't work and only create a permanent and growing underclass that must be supported forever.
Marxism is nothing more than the ploy to implement full blown communism. The ploy only works if you are ignorant/stupid and it is frightening how many ignorant/stupid people we have in our government.
OneGuy: That is far different from the rogue government using that social contract against our will and taking our hard earned money to give away with the intent of buying votes.
You mean like Social Security and Medicare, which have both had large popular support for generations.
Aggie: You've answered stupidly.
It's a direct example of "taking" from some to give to others, with wide popular and political support. That is, it is taxation with representation. That directly refutes OneGuy's position.
Your reply is vacuous, of course.
SS and Medicare should have been privatized decades ago. Allow each contributing member to own and manage their account much like an IRA.
BUT... Seriously! You think SS and Medicare are the equivalent to welfare? You are way dumber then I thought you were.
I would be in favor of creating a "welfare" where the recipient was given work in return for the assistance, OR required to pay it back once they were working again.
I was born probably before your parents were born and I remember when being on the public dole was looked down upon. I can remember my father going around the neighborhood to shovel snow for enough money to buy food and my mother adamantly declaring she would never go on the dole. Both of my grandmothers and two of my aunts lived with us because times were hard but we wouldn't even go get the cheese that they would hand out at the city hall. I have often said that when times get tough I know I could survive because I learned from that experience. What does anyone on welfare learn today??? They learn that they can sell their vote/freedom for free stuff. It's a trap. It saddens me that people who spend their lives on welfare never have the satisfaction of building a life with their own strength and wits; never discover the satisfaction of providing for their family and stepping up to the challenge and meeting it head on. What a frigging waste of time and resources.
OneGuy: Allow each contributing member to own and manage their account much like an IRA.
That shows a misunderstanding of Social Security. Social Security is an income transfer system from young to old. In order for current retirees to continue to receive benefits and for current contributors to build equity would require paying more in payroll taxes.
OneGuy: You think SS and Medicare are the equivalent to welfare?
It's a "taking" from one group and "giving" it to another.
Actually, with few exceptions, a person is not eligible for social security or Medicare without paying into the system. I’ve paid into this system for 40 years with no option to opt out. This is not welfare, it’s a forced retirement fund.
Illinois Hound: Actually, with few exceptions, a person is not eligible for social security or Medicare without paying into the system.
Most pay into the system, however, it’s not a savings account. It’s an income transfer program, from young to old, from healthy to sick. Per OneGuy’s reckoning, it’s “taking” from some to “give” to others.
The original point was the confusion that occurs by conflating the democratic implementation of the social safety net in a mixed economy with a state controlling all the means of production.
New York Times publishes redesigns of the American flag,
"The American flag is a potent piece of national iconography, but its design shifted frequently until the early 1900s. What if it were redesigned today? We asked artists and graphic designers to try," the Times wrote. "Some are functional designs, others artistic renderings; some represent America as it could be, others how the artist sees the country now."
One design from Andrew Kuo shows a flag split into four rectangles with one square consisting of red and white stripes while the other three are solid blue, yellow, and green rectangles. According to the artist the red stripes represent the past, the white stripes represent the future, while the solid colors represent "untapped potential," "repairing systemic racism," and "taking care of our planet."