"Socialism is love" at least according to the half insane, buffoon dictator from Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. And, he has been acting accordingly by taxing the rich, socializing their businesses, and giving money and services to the poor. He is just a very loving, caring man, and, not coincidently, so are our American Democrats who would love to do the same things here if only they could get rid of the mean, loveless, self-interested Republicans.
The first of these self-interested Republicans was probably Adam Smith who published his capitalist bible "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776 just in time to see it incorporated into the new American Constitution which then proved to be the foundation of freedom and prosperity on earth. But, in perhaps one of the most unfortunate public relations omissions in human intellectual history Smith wrote "It is not from the benevolence of butchers, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self love." So there it is, regardless of the results of Adam Smith's capitalism, whether seen in the comparison between North and South Korea, USA and USSR/Communist China, East and West Germany, East and West Berlin, Cuba and Florida, Nogales,AZ and Nogales, Mexico, and Hong Kong and Communist China, capitalism was created for the "self-love" or the "interest" of the capitalist and so it is just no damn good despite the supernatural results.
To be fair to Smith, the distrust of the rich started long before 1776. The Bible (Matthew 19:24) , after all, says, "it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." That prejudice against the rich, however, should be largely discounted in part because it was, in fact, mostly justified at the time it was written, and in part because even today, despite the discovery and development of the science of economics, the Church, much like Hugo Chavez, has not been able to mature its economic thinking one tiny bit beyond pre-economic Biblical times.
Given the historic and long standing distrust of the rich it was indeed unfortunate for Smith to perpetuate this Biblical disapprobation for the rich by referring to self-love and self- interest at a time when it was widely believed among the masses that real love had to be wholly manifested toward another person; not the self. God, after all, magnanimously sacrificed his son for us; not for himself. But did the founding architect of capitalism really believe capitalists were selfish? Of course not. Smith, as it turns out, was also a moral philosopher equally famous for his "Theory of Moral Sentiments" which is a 500 page tome about the moral obligations that people naturally feel toward one another, and place at the heart of their lives.
So how did he reconcile man's natural moral and social sentiments with capitalism? Concentrate here if you are a Democrat, this is the place where the complexity may well grow too much for you. In Chapter One, page one, Smith says, "how selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure in seeing it. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it".
On Chapter 2, page 10, he says, "those who are fond of deducing all our sentiments from certain refinements of self- love" are mistaken. Another's "pleasure and pain are always felt so instantaneously, and often upon such frivolous occasions derived, that it seems evident that neither of them can be derived from any self-interested consideration."
Chapter 5 Sec. 1: "And hence it is, that to feel much for others, and little for ourselves, constitutes the perfection of human nature." As to love our neighbor as we love ourselves is the great law of Christianity".
Part 1, Sec. 3, page 70: For what purpose is all the toil and bustle of this world? What is the end of avarice and ambition, of the pursuit of wealth, of power, and pre-eminence? It is the vanity, not the ease, or the pleasure (of wealth), which interests us. But, vanity is always founded upon the belief of our being the object of attention and approbation." The poor man on the contrary is ashamed of his poverty. This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or at least, to neglect, persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments".
So there you have it, when all is said and done, Smith conceived of capitalism not as selfish, as Hugo Chavez, the Democrats, and the ubiquitous, delusive liberal press would have you believe, but as loving and Christian. If Smith had been clear about this; had he not provided this opening to Karl Marx there might not have been big gov't communists, socialists and Democrats.
As to the exact mechanism by which capitalism yields far greater wealth, for everyone, than socialism, Democrats should not trouble themselves with the level of complexity necessary to reach an understanding It will undoubtedly be beyond their abilities. Let it be sufficient for them to admit that if they somehow lost custody of a child to a capitalist country, rather than to a socialist one, they would sleep far better at night, not only because their child would be wealthier but also because he would be treated better on a personal level; in large part because capitalism teaches and requires a great deal of mutual respect on all levels from those who participate.
Oddly, in some quarters of the liberal world, self-love is permitted without animadversion, as for example, when the Clinton Administration informed us that self love or masturbation was an adequate substitute for mutual love, especially among the young. And then there is the army of, mostly liberal, coaches, guru's, social workers, therapists, analysts, and doctors who inform us that we must work really hard to love ourselves before we can love another. Isn't that odd? In what might be considered the most important aspect of social life, one must start on a foundation of self love? How anti-Christian and self interested is that? The theory purportedly is that only after you love yourself, presumably for legitimate reasons and after much work and preparation, will someone else find you worthy of love, or at least more worthy than someone who has not prepared as much or as successfully to love themselves. So let's not forget, in this version of liberal human nature, love is not a charitable socialist endeavor equally available to all, it is available only to those who love themselves first, and then, perhaps, extend that love to another person. That sounds sort of selfish doesn't it?
But then isn't the bargain between lovers similar to the bargain between capitalists? Perish the thought! But oh yes, you do want to be able to buy the best manifestation of the self interested man's labor as defined in a competitive environment. And yes, the seller does want to sell to the person most able to pay for what he is sure are the very valuable products of his self-love. And yes again, the buyer does delight in being able to afford to buy, with the fruits of her self-interested labor, the best that is sold. If it works in liberal love shouldn't it work for mere goods and services too? Who would expect a quality product or mate from someone who had no self-interest?
As interesting, the Democrats are so very superior and proud about their scientific realization that evolution is superior to creationism. But isn't that odd given that God created everyone to be equal, and to be loved equally, while evolution depends on a cruel social Darwinism in which the weak must perish? It is one thing to be at a slight disadvantage in the competitive capitalist arena but quite another to be at a disadvantage in the deadly "survival of the fittest" liberal evolutionary world isn't it? Isn't capitalism then just a minor manifestation of the dog eat dog evolutionary world of which liberals are so proudly enamored?
If that's too theoretical, here's another easy way to poke a huge hole in the liberal "socialism is love" moral bigotry: look at a wonderful new book called "Who Really Cares". It seems that a growing body of research indicates, among many other similar things, that Red State Republicans are 35% more likely to give to charity, 45% more likely to help a homeless person on the street, and 57% more likely to give blood than liberals. And that is only the beginning.
Perhaps it gives amplification to the book "Compassionate Conservatism" which muses about how liberals don't seems to care because their habit is to pay failed gov't bureaucrats to care in their place, while conservatives personally volunteer and care purposively through a huge variety of faith based initiatives?
So in the end is socialism love or is capitalism? Even without the practical hint provided by the USSR, Communist China, North Korea, East Germany, Cuba, Nogales, Hong Kong, "Who Really Cares", "Compassionate Conservatism", and The Theory of Moral Sentiments", Democrats should be able to get this right but, alas, even with perfect practical and theoretical evidence combined, they never can muster up the sentiency for this most simply of tasks, and so hundreds of years after Adam Smith and Karl Marx we still must countenance the moral bigotry of Hugo Chavez and the Democrats. What a pity.
bje1000@aol.com
Ted Baiamonte
A debate with Democrats who dare
is always welcomed.
th507
2.08.2007
Five Great New Books In 300 Words
In Nick Cohen's book, "What's Left: How Liberals Lost Their Way", he tells of how he grew up in a typically bigoted left wing European household where it was considered morally superior not to support apartheid in South Africa, fascism in Spain, Israeli occupation in the Middle East , or capitalist oranges from Florida. But, by 9/11 he had concluded, "leftists are likelier to excuse fascist governments than conservatives. The failure of socialism/communism/ liberalism has freed the left to go along with any movement against the status quo in general (the revolutionaries mindless default position) and specifically, America". According to "The Economist" the example in Cohen's book that preponderates is, "the unholy alliance between the left wing movements in the West and Islamic extremism.
"Not coincidently, Dinesh D'Souza makes an almost identical point in his new book "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its responsibility for 9/11." He says the Islamic terrorists and the cultural left are like two blades of a scissors both necessary to cut the paper or, in this case, win the war. The terrorists work to blow people up in Iraq and the American left works with them to make voters believe the terrorist efforts must prevail and any Republican measures to the contrary, must be undermined or discredited. He further makes the point that the American left, led by the hapless Jimmy Carter, gave Iran to the terrorists and thereby started the world down the path that led directly to 9/11 and Iraq. They did this, he claims, because in their hatred for American freedom they failed to see the wisdom in a Republican foreign policy that supported pro American autocratic regimes (like the Shah of Iran's) over anti-American Communist or totalitarian regimes like that of the Ayatollah's.
In the end, why do liberals often feel a greater allegiance to fascists (let's always remember that when the Soviets wanted spies they looked among the liberals) than to freedom loving Republicans? It is mostly because they are good hearted but simple minded utopians. They and fascists of various stripes believe in bold collectivist or totalitarian action to solve humankind's problems, whether real or imagined, while Jefferson and the Republicans merely believe in freedom. Freedom is not utopian. Rather, it is way to empower and enlist every human being with the responsibility to shape his own life, and solve his own problems in his own way and in his own time. It builds a better society though, because each individual is then obligated to contribute his own efforts to that society and to take full responsibility for them rather than be side lined waiting on the efforts of a few genius bureaucrats who manage a supposedly miraculous and distant federal gov't. To a liberal, freedom is tantamount to neglect, to pragmatic Republicans it is the only thing that has ever worked and, moreover, the only thing consistent with each human beings central need to fully employ his body and mind to create his own life. Liberalism offers welfare of various kinds that paralyzes the human soul, depriving it of self-sufficient purpose, meaning, and employment.
To make the point from a slightly different direction another Republican intellectual, Jonah Goldberg, has written a new book titled- Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton. His basic point is similar, namely, liberalism is similar to, or supportive of, fascism, and opposed to freedom. But why, again (actually the millionth time since Jefferson), is it similar to fascism? It is similar because it relies on empowering gov't to solve problems while America has transformed human history based on the prescient Jeffersonian idea of empowering individuals or freeing them from gov't in order that they solve their own problems and perhaps those of their immediate family and neighbors.
But, weren't the gov'ts of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao bigger than the gov't liberals propose? Answer: we don't think so because liberals will not say how big is big. What we do know is that since the Jeffersonian American Revolution against gov't, and since every revolution in human history, the temptation has always been to see gov't as magical and so to expand it more and more until it produces disasters like The Civil War, WW2, The Gulag, The Cultural Revolution, and The New Deal or Great Society. In light of this perfect Democratic trajectory designed to always concentrate more and more power in fewer and fewer hands, there is no reason to assume American liberals will ever stop short of fascism or short of disasters like the New Deal or Great society, unless of course Republicans stop them or they happen to have a "road to Damascus" conversion that mysteriously leads them to respect Lord Acton's pronouncement, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"The fourth book of the five is written by a brilliant liberal (at least in terms of IQ) who is a Senator from NY and a Harvard Law School Graduate to boot. It is called "Positively American". The Senator has hit the nail on the head with his nefarious title designed to promote the necessary lie that liberalism, which presumably (that is if you are willing to consider the obvious lessons of world history) will lead to some form of fascism or serfdom, is "Positively American", while freedom somehow is not. Then, the Senator moves on to confront the problem of which kind of liberal gov't to present to freedom loving Americans. After all, human history has given him many examples from Caesar to Ayatollah all of which turned out to be pure evil; so it must, understandably, be a huge problem to pick from among the deadly liberal alternatives. Here is what Schumer said about the quintessential liberal Democratic dilemma in a moment of confused honesty: "the truth is the eight words (describing the Democratic Party) are far more elusive than you might imagine. I've spent two years trying to find them. It's not possible for Democrats to boil down our core ideology to eight words." What he really means is that focus group research designed to help him subvert American freedom has not been very successful. What a surprise !
Why doesn't Schumer just rely on the American Constitution to define what Democrats stand for? As a Senator, doesn't he take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution? Barack Obama, a liberal Harvard ally of Schumer's, had a neat answer for this one in his latest book: "even the framers didn't agree on what they meant in the Constitution." Translation: "since the framers didn't know what they were talking about, liberal socialism can be "Positively American" too. The real answer is simple: none of the Santa Claus gov't flim flam schemes that Schumer, Obama and the Democrats advocate are found in or supported by The Constitution Of The United States; so they are not American and, when honestly described, don't sell to Americas.
The complete astonishing oblivion of Schumer was highlighted recently, apparently for the first time in his life, when, in an unscripted moment, he was confronted with the Republican premise. His Harvard Law School trained mind blurted out, "sir, do you want the gov't to fight wars for you?" Answer: "Mr. Schumer, Jefferson was a Republican for limited gov't, not an anarchist". Yet, Democrats cling to their intellectually amorphous ideas with the certainly of any bigots who are absolutely certain that they have no responsibility, whatsoever, to think beyond their most primitive "do gooder" emotions. In fact, the American Constitution is specifically designed to protect us from Democratic liberalism and its' eventual conclusion. America has grown to be the greatest county in human history only because Democrats have not yet been allowed to destroy large parts of the Constitution. Schumer's megalomaniacal moral bigotry that his big gov't will finally be the one big gov't in all of human history that will really be all sweet and fuzzy is exactly as megalomaniacal as all those that have come before. And that is exactly what finally led Thomas Jefferson to manumitingly stand astride all of human history and say, "STOP", let's try freedom.
Ted Baiamonte
comments welcome: bje1000@aol.com
www. thedumbdemocrat
f555
"Not coincidently, Dinesh D'Souza makes an almost identical point in his new book "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its responsibility for 9/11." He says the Islamic terrorists and the cultural left are like two blades of a scissors both necessary to cut the paper or, in this case, win the war. The terrorists work to blow people up in Iraq and the American left works with them to make voters believe the terrorist efforts must prevail and any Republican measures to the contrary, must be undermined or discredited. He further makes the point that the American left, led by the hapless Jimmy Carter, gave Iran to the terrorists and thereby started the world down the path that led directly to 9/11 and Iraq. They did this, he claims, because in their hatred for American freedom they failed to see the wisdom in a Republican foreign policy that supported pro American autocratic regimes (like the Shah of Iran's) over anti-American Communist or totalitarian regimes like that of the Ayatollah's.
In the end, why do liberals often feel a greater allegiance to fascists (let's always remember that when the Soviets wanted spies they looked among the liberals) than to freedom loving Republicans? It is mostly because they are good hearted but simple minded utopians. They and fascists of various stripes believe in bold collectivist or totalitarian action to solve humankind's problems, whether real or imagined, while Jefferson and the Republicans merely believe in freedom. Freedom is not utopian. Rather, it is way to empower and enlist every human being with the responsibility to shape his own life, and solve his own problems in his own way and in his own time. It builds a better society though, because each individual is then obligated to contribute his own efforts to that society and to take full responsibility for them rather than be side lined waiting on the efforts of a few genius bureaucrats who manage a supposedly miraculous and distant federal gov't. To a liberal, freedom is tantamount to neglect, to pragmatic Republicans it is the only thing that has ever worked and, moreover, the only thing consistent with each human beings central need to fully employ his body and mind to create his own life. Liberalism offers welfare of various kinds that paralyzes the human soul, depriving it of self-sufficient purpose, meaning, and employment.
To make the point from a slightly different direction another Republican intellectual, Jonah Goldberg, has written a new book titled- Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton. His basic point is similar, namely, liberalism is similar to, or supportive of, fascism, and opposed to freedom. But why, again (actually the millionth time since Jefferson), is it similar to fascism? It is similar because it relies on empowering gov't to solve problems while America has transformed human history based on the prescient Jeffersonian idea of empowering individuals or freeing them from gov't in order that they solve their own problems and perhaps those of their immediate family and neighbors.
But, weren't the gov'ts of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao bigger than the gov't liberals propose? Answer: we don't think so because liberals will not say how big is big. What we do know is that since the Jeffersonian American Revolution against gov't, and since every revolution in human history, the temptation has always been to see gov't as magical and so to expand it more and more until it produces disasters like The Civil War, WW2, The Gulag, The Cultural Revolution, and The New Deal or Great Society. In light of this perfect Democratic trajectory designed to always concentrate more and more power in fewer and fewer hands, there is no reason to assume American liberals will ever stop short of fascism or short of disasters like the New Deal or Great society, unless of course Republicans stop them or they happen to have a "road to Damascus" conversion that mysteriously leads them to respect Lord Acton's pronouncement, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"The fourth book of the five is written by a brilliant liberal (at least in terms of IQ) who is a Senator from NY and a Harvard Law School Graduate to boot. It is called "Positively American". The Senator has hit the nail on the head with his nefarious title designed to promote the necessary lie that liberalism, which presumably (that is if you are willing to consider the obvious lessons of world history) will lead to some form of fascism or serfdom, is "Positively American", while freedom somehow is not. Then, the Senator moves on to confront the problem of which kind of liberal gov't to present to freedom loving Americans. After all, human history has given him many examples from Caesar to Ayatollah all of which turned out to be pure evil; so it must, understandably, be a huge problem to pick from among the deadly liberal alternatives. Here is what Schumer said about the quintessential liberal Democratic dilemma in a moment of confused honesty: "the truth is the eight words (describing the Democratic Party) are far more elusive than you might imagine. I've spent two years trying to find them. It's not possible for Democrats to boil down our core ideology to eight words." What he really means is that focus group research designed to help him subvert American freedom has not been very successful. What a surprise !
Why doesn't Schumer just rely on the American Constitution to define what Democrats stand for? As a Senator, doesn't he take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution? Barack Obama, a liberal Harvard ally of Schumer's, had a neat answer for this one in his latest book: "even the framers didn't agree on what they meant in the Constitution." Translation: "since the framers didn't know what they were talking about, liberal socialism can be "Positively American" too. The real answer is simple: none of the Santa Claus gov't flim flam schemes that Schumer, Obama and the Democrats advocate are found in or supported by The Constitution Of The United States; so they are not American and, when honestly described, don't sell to Americas.
The complete astonishing oblivion of Schumer was highlighted recently, apparently for the first time in his life, when, in an unscripted moment, he was confronted with the Republican premise. His Harvard Law School trained mind blurted out, "sir, do you want the gov't to fight wars for you?" Answer: "Mr. Schumer, Jefferson was a Republican for limited gov't, not an anarchist". Yet, Democrats cling to their intellectually amorphous ideas with the certainly of any bigots who are absolutely certain that they have no responsibility, whatsoever, to think beyond their most primitive "do gooder" emotions. In fact, the American Constitution is specifically designed to protect us from Democratic liberalism and its' eventual conclusion. America has grown to be the greatest county in human history only because Democrats have not yet been allowed to destroy large parts of the Constitution. Schumer's megalomaniacal moral bigotry that his big gov't will finally be the one big gov't in all of human history that will really be all sweet and fuzzy is exactly as megalomaniacal as all those that have come before. And that is exactly what finally led Thomas Jefferson to manumitingly stand astride all of human history and say, "STOP", let's try freedom.
Ted Baiamonte
comments welcome: bje1000@aol.com
www. thedumbdemocrat
f555
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)