Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Root of Left-Wing Ideology
"I do not have a monopoly on the truth, the truth has a monopoly on the truth."by John Russell Turner
LEFT-WING: A BRANCH OF POLITICAL THOUGHT THAT HOLDS THE BELIEF IN THE ULTIMATE SUPREMACY OF THE STATE. The power of the state should be used to help the poor. And this is how it is currently done: take(tax) the property of others in order to have money to give to those whom the state deems poor.
Thus we see clearly that violence is at the root of all Left wing social policies, for what recourse does the State have if an individual would prefer to keep his money, rather than have it given to someone else? The money must be taken by force, and most certainly will be. The ends (helping the poor) can not and must never justify the means (theft, euphemistically called taxation), for if that is so, then anything goes if the ends are sufficiently compelling.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Reason for Optimism
by John Russell Turner
I'VE BEEN OPTIMISTIC. I've been telling people that the economy will improve after the usual post Holiday slump. The reason I am so is because the tax cuts were extended. Now people know. The uncertainty is gone-they know that their tax rates will remain the same as it was since the Bush administration enacted a reduction in taxes a few years ago. Prior to the extension of the tax cuts, there was a lot of uncertainty about just how much money people would have after the government took it's "share". Couple that with the remarkably anti-capitalist/pro-socialist sentiment coming from the White House and Capitol Hill, and most people were afraid to spend their money. No one knew how things would go-so they played it safe. Now, however, people are far more likely to spend and invest their cash-the essential factor in an economic recovery.
Let us make it easy for people to participate in the capitalist system by removing the barriers to their entry. High taxes and burdensome regulation is the single most difficult barrier most people face. If there is going to be a "war on poverty", then it must be fought to win, and to win quickly-and the only way this can be is if people are free to earn the most effective cure to poverty there is: cash.
I don't believe there should be a debate about this anymore. Socialists cannot be taken seriously in the realm of ideas, for any number of reasons. We have debated for decades now. We have seen the results of socialism in action. We know that the ideologies upon which socialism is based has ruined the societies upon which it was imposed. In fact, it could be logically deduced that this ideology-basically, that it is moral to take the property of another by force and give it to someone else who needs it-has caused more death and pain than any other cause, including disease. All of what I write here has been shown to be true over and over again. There is no legitimate doubt anymore, we all know it: socialism is a failure, capitalism is a success. Should you have doubts, imagine if you will a North Korean mission successfully landing on the moon. Imagine a Saudi Arabian discovery of a cancer cure. Or any totalitarian government doing anything but ruling. Capitalism makes it possible for individuals to realize their utmost potential, for individuals to dream and then make those dreams a reality.
Sure, money isn't everything.
Yes, but it will cure poverty.
And as a tool, it enables people to thrive.
Let us make it easy for people to participate in the capitalist system by removing the barriers to their entry. High taxes and burdensome regulation is the single most difficult barrier most people face. If there is going to be a "war on poverty", then it must be fought to win, and to win quickly-and the only way this can be is if people are free to earn the most effective cure to poverty there is: cash.
I don't believe there should be a debate about this anymore. Socialists cannot be taken seriously in the realm of ideas, for any number of reasons. We have debated for decades now. We have seen the results of socialism in action. We know that the ideologies upon which socialism is based has ruined the societies upon which it was imposed. In fact, it could be logically deduced that this ideology-basically, that it is moral to take the property of another by force and give it to someone else who needs it-has caused more death and pain than any other cause, including disease. All of what I write here has been shown to be true over and over again. There is no legitimate doubt anymore, we all know it: socialism is a failure, capitalism is a success. Should you have doubts, imagine if you will a North Korean mission successfully landing on the moon. Imagine a Saudi Arabian discovery of a cancer cure. Or any totalitarian government doing anything but ruling. Capitalism makes it possible for individuals to realize their utmost potential, for individuals to dream and then make those dreams a reality.
Sure, money isn't everything.
Yes, but it will cure poverty.
And as a tool, it enables people to thrive.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Bea Arthur Was a Marine
Bea Arthur, who passed away recently, reminded me of my aunt. I loved her dry, sarcastic sense of humor and her appealing mixture of toughness and feminity. I used to watch The Golden Girls just to see her; many times she had me almost asphyxiating with laughter.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
How Best To Help the Poor...and Everyone Else
by John Russell Turner
Liberals and conservatives usually agree on the importance of helping the unfortunate ones amongst us, the poor and downtrodden; all or most of the disagreement today is on the means to this ends. How do we help the poor?
The left wing answer is: let the government handle it. They have lots of money and other resources, so they can do the job better than any one of us can.
The right wing answer is: let private charities and individuals do what they can to ease the sufferings of others. Maintain a culture where the individual is free to earn as much money as his abilities allow him. The government should stay out of the altruism business because it must tax it's citizens in order to do anything, and this means less money in everyone's pockets-which means people will be less likely to invest. And since investing creates jobs, with decreased investment there will be fewer jobs. Let's face it, gainful employment is the cure for poverty. It will totally eliminate it, if the individual acts rationally.
These are the basics of the arguments on both sides. Some would say that a little bit of government and a little bit of private charity can't hurt. That's what we have in place today. To fully understand why such a mixture is immoral, and in the long run will lead to societal collapse, it is important to see taxation for what it really is.
Taxation is not production, it is not earned income; taxation is money taken by the government from its' citizens so the government can operate. Because it is not production, but rather a tax on production, government growth must be funded by those in the economy who make money and wealth. At certain levels of taxation, most of us can still do whatever it is we are planning; there is money left over to invest in a mutual fund, stocks and bonds, or in a business of our own...but there comes a point when the amount of taxes we pay influences our other economic activity. With less money, we are less inclined to take risks. With less money, we do not invest it anywhere but at home. Taxes risen past a certain point actually winds up sending less money to the government treasury-the famous "Laffer Curve".
The problem is the government has a lot of projects and programs it administers and funds. Also, a question arises: is it appropriate for the government to do anything at all except govern? When and how did it get in the business of altruism, social engineering, and such? This is a relevant question because people have property rights at birth-all of us must be free to keep what we own, otherwise we cannot survive at all-therefore, the right to property is about as important and just as equal as the right to live! People should keep as much of what they earn as possible. But when the government decides to go past its' proper role in human affairs, it is we who must pay for it, and suppose we don't want to pay (with our hard earned money) for the various government programs out there? Well, we get arrested, of course, and sent to jail-and don't think about refusing to go to jail, because they'll kill you if you put up a strong enough resistance. This illustrates perfectly what the government and an armed robber have in common, and gives a clue as to why government help programs are immoral. They are a drain on the economy, it's not the government's job to be in any kind of business except governing, they violate the property rights of others (as any wealth transfer scheme does), and they all essentially rely on the use of physical force. Finally, as more and more money is taxed away from the productive (this includes wage earners), the incentive to work is weakened, and in some cases, eliminated. The economy stagnates. People produce less, and government revenue rapidly declines. Soon, the government cannot even fund its' most basic, proper functions, and anarchy results.
The solution to poverty, therefore, is an environment of free enterprise with minimal taxation and regulations, thus creating more jobs (and more entrepreneurs), thus giving more people the ability to create wealth.
 |
| The Laffer Curve |
The left wing answer is: let the government handle it. They have lots of money and other resources, so they can do the job better than any one of us can.
The right wing answer is: let private charities and individuals do what they can to ease the sufferings of others. Maintain a culture where the individual is free to earn as much money as his abilities allow him. The government should stay out of the altruism business because it must tax it's citizens in order to do anything, and this means less money in everyone's pockets-which means people will be less likely to invest. And since investing creates jobs, with decreased investment there will be fewer jobs. Let's face it, gainful employment is the cure for poverty. It will totally eliminate it, if the individual acts rationally.
These are the basics of the arguments on both sides. Some would say that a little bit of government and a little bit of private charity can't hurt. That's what we have in place today. To fully understand why such a mixture is immoral, and in the long run will lead to societal collapse, it is important to see taxation for what it really is.
Taxation is not production, it is not earned income; taxation is money taken by the government from its' citizens so the government can operate. Because it is not production, but rather a tax on production, government growth must be funded by those in the economy who make money and wealth. At certain levels of taxation, most of us can still do whatever it is we are planning; there is money left over to invest in a mutual fund, stocks and bonds, or in a business of our own...but there comes a point when the amount of taxes we pay influences our other economic activity. With less money, we are less inclined to take risks. With less money, we do not invest it anywhere but at home. Taxes risen past a certain point actually winds up sending less money to the government treasury-the famous "Laffer Curve".
The problem is the government has a lot of projects and programs it administers and funds. Also, a question arises: is it appropriate for the government to do anything at all except govern? When and how did it get in the business of altruism, social engineering, and such? This is a relevant question because people have property rights at birth-all of us must be free to keep what we own, otherwise we cannot survive at all-therefore, the right to property is about as important and just as equal as the right to live! People should keep as much of what they earn as possible. But when the government decides to go past its' proper role in human affairs, it is we who must pay for it, and suppose we don't want to pay (with our hard earned money) for the various government programs out there? Well, we get arrested, of course, and sent to jail-and don't think about refusing to go to jail, because they'll kill you if you put up a strong enough resistance. This illustrates perfectly what the government and an armed robber have in common, and gives a clue as to why government help programs are immoral. They are a drain on the economy, it's not the government's job to be in any kind of business except governing, they violate the property rights of others (as any wealth transfer scheme does), and they all essentially rely on the use of physical force. Finally, as more and more money is taxed away from the productive (this includes wage earners), the incentive to work is weakened, and in some cases, eliminated. The economy stagnates. People produce less, and government revenue rapidly declines. Soon, the government cannot even fund its' most basic, proper functions, and anarchy results.
The solution to poverty, therefore, is an environment of free enterprise with minimal taxation and regulations, thus creating more jobs (and more entrepreneurs), thus giving more people the ability to create wealth.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
John Lennon's Last Days | Rolling Stone Music
John Lennon's Last Days | Rolling Stone Music
Free Market Education?
by John Russell Turner
The government is paying for me to go to school, therefore I must abide by the situation I find myself in. I can not control the curriculum. Either I learn the things they say I must learn, or I leave the school. If I were paying with my money, I don't know if I'd have any real control over what I study, because the educators get together and decide what shall be mandatory and what shall be elective. So I don't think my situation is caused by government funding. It is caused by educators thinking that they know what is best for me and the other students. Or, it was caused by educators wanting to maintain the credibility of their school...therefore they ensure that their students are "well-rounded", and knowledgable in their chosen major, I assume. More likely it is the personal agenda of the educators (see David Horowitz).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
It's been almost six years since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans-and the city is still recovering. The 2010 census for Orleans Parish ... -
by John Russell Turner May 9, 2019 Some women and girls who consider abortion do so because they are faced with extreme difficulties, sho...