Power outages. No toilet paper. Rampant Inflation. And now the inevitable brutality that is always the endpoint of socialism. Rolling Stone Contributor Jesse Myerson… who wrote an article urging Millennials to fight for socialism (more on that anon)… thinks the Chavista regime is “basically terrific.” (Or here, in case he has a blinding flash of how stupid that tweet is and deletes it.) He also dutifully calls the opposition protesters “fascists.”
The MFM have been covering the unrest in Ukraine pretty well, but pretty much ignoring the similar violence going on much closer to home in Venezuela.
Throughout last night, panicked people told their stories of state-sponsored paramilitaries on motorcycles roaming middle class neighborhoods, shooting at people and storming into apartment buildings, shooting at anyone who seemed like he might be protesting.
People continue to be arrested merely for protesting, and a long established local Human Rights NGO makes an urgent plea for an investigation into widespread reports of torture of detainees. There are now dozens of serious human right abuses: National Guardsmen shooting tear gas canisters directly into residential buildings. We have videos of soldiers shooting civilians on the street.
Of course, Venezuela is “problematic” for the MFM because they cheered when the Communist Regime came to power and were rooting for it to succeed. Hugo Chavez wasn’t much different than their hero, Barack Obama, because he was going to address income inequality and lead his country to a bright social-democratic future. Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte and other celebrities traveled to Caracas to do their best Walter Duranty on Chavez’s regime. When Chavez shut down the opposition press, the left cheered and wished Obama could do the same to FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh. Democrat politicians adored Chavez. The MFM mourned him when he passed, and ignored his legacy of power-grabbing, shutting down opposition, and leaving his oil-rich country with rampant power outages and shortages of basic commodities.
The end result of these regimes is always the same… deprivation, oppression, violence, and death. And yet humans always insist on giving it another go.
It’s easy for them to cover the violence in the Ukraine; they weren’t rooting for the Ukrainian Government to succeed and show that communism can work if there’s enough money and “the right people” are in charge of it.
Could be a hoax, but doesn’t sound like one:
…To all you workers out there preaching morality about those of us who live on welfare… can you really blame us? I get to sit around all day, visit my friends, smoke weed.. and we are still gonna get paid, on time every month…
If I was in a position where I had to work, that might be a different story…
The Soviet Union used to have a slogan, “He who does not work shall not eat”. Though aimed at the bourgeoisie, in tough times it was also applied to the lazy. In other words, the communists were tougher on non-working healthy people than we are.
Via Zero Hedge, who previously noted “the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.”
And it’s happening in the middle of our own society, now.
I didn’t say nearly enough about this morning’s incredibly wrong quote from Jonathan Gruber, who is billed as the ‘architect’ of Obamacare:
We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you’re sick, if you’ve been sick or [if] you’re going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance.
The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price. That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who’ve been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return.
First, Gruber doesn’t understand free markets: If we had them (and we have NOT had them in medical care for decades), then health insurance would always be available to people with pre-existing conditions, at some price. And they could choose to take it, or not – as they have the means and perceive being to their own advantage (or not).
One of the ways the Left wins is by warping language. In this case, the Left has warped the concept of “health insurance” to mean “subsidized health care”, health care paid largely by Other People’s Money.
And it’s true: the free market won’t supply that – beyond voluntary charity. Because it is by definition a win-lose transaction. Someone must be forced to pay the subsidy, and that person loses. The free market is about win-win transactions. If your basic desire is to win at someone else’s expense, forcing them to pay for you, then you naturally hate free markets; the Left is your political home. Congratulations.
Next, Gruber thinks it’s “discriminatory” that people with conditions would pay more for health care. But here’s the thing: They take more health care.
Just like young men get into more car accidents, consume more repair services and thus have to pay higher rates for car insurance, so unhealthy people properly should have larger bills for health care – or health insurance.
Finally, Gruber’s quote wrongly chalks up everything about one’s health to genetics, ignoring the role of lifestyle choices in determining health – and thus ignoring the role of personal responsibility. And that may be where he’s most wrong. We know that socializing health care will lead a society to greater disease, as people make worse lifestyle choices.
But we also know that the Left has a ready ‘solution’ for it: namely, greater government control of people’s lifestyle choices. We’ve seen the beginnings of it in the U.S., with Nanny Michelle-Bloomberg’s efforts. It’s a road that ends with everyone doing mandatory calisthenics in front of the telescreen, _1984_-style. Because, at some point, no one’s life is their own anymore; each person is an investment (property) of the State.
Which brings me to my point. There are, so to speak, “two paths you can go by”.
- If you believe in freedom – that is, in self-ownership, responsibility and choice under the Rule of Law – the logic of your position drives you toward limited government. Not to anarchy, but to *min*archy: the idea that government is there to protect people’s rights against attack and crime and, beyond that, to do little; allowing people to reap what they sow.
- If, instead, you believe in community ownership of people’s lives and efforts – the central tendency of communism – the logic of your position drives you toward ever-larger government. You will always need more government, to solve the social problems that you caused by your last round of increases to government. Concluding in totalitarianism.
People support Obamacare and President Obama depending on whether – deep in their souls – they truly prefer freedom or dictatorship.
Gruber’s idea is essentially communist. The idea that capable and healthy people must be forced to pay for incapable or unhealthy people, lest society be “discriminatory” or whatever, means that people’s lives are not their own. Whatever people become, whatever they produce, is ultimately the State’s property to distribute as it sees the need.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – it can’t really ever be implemented, but if it could be, then only by total government diktat over everyone and everything. That is Gruber’s road – the underlying logic of his position – whether he admits it or not. It is also Karl Marx’s.
Don’t worry, I’m probably not going to make these headline summaries a regular feature. Other bloggers do it better.
Still, I must again express my amazement at how, on any given day, a quick scan of the headlines reveals a world gone awry. Just from Ace and HotAir today:
- The IRS may be spying on your Facebook page and Twitter stream, for God-knows-what reason.
- Hundreds of leftists celebrate Thatcher’s death by partying and/or rioting. Meanwhile, an MSNBC host claims that she embodied greed. So much for human freedom, I guess.
- In Massachusetts, people are no longer allowed to defend themselves from wild animals.
- When are women *not* entitled to control the product of their bodies? When a creepy, duck-speaking lefty feels the need to take control of their kids.
- On the Aurora shooter, a tragedy of errors.
- It comes out that police were warned about him, a month before. That kinda works against the narrative in favor of gun control, so now…
- The Fox reporter who brought it out may go to jail. And…
- The rest of the media doesn’t care. A contrast to the Plame case which, remember, was much ado about nothing (except that it played against a GOP President).
- Meanwhile, North Korea threatens to launch nuclear missiles… and Obama still wants to cut missile defense spending.
- And lefty GWU students can’t get over the fact that a Catholic priest would teach Catholic teachings.
I need to start looking for things that are going right. Of course Obamacare, which kills both jobs and worker benefits, isn’t one of them.
GDANSK, Poland — Polish officials unveiled a statue of former President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II on Saturday, honoring two men widely credited in this Eastern European country with helping to topple communism 23 years ago.
People look at a new statue of former President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II that was unveiled in Gdansk, Poland, on Saturday, July 14, 2012. The statue honors the two men whom many Poles credit with helping to topple communism.
The statue was unveiled in Gdansk, the birthplace of Lech Walesa’s Solidarity movement, in the presence of about 120 former Solidarity activists, many of whom were imprisoned in the 1980s for their roles in organizing or taking part in strikes against the communist regime.
The bronze statue, erected in the lush seaside President Ronald Reagan Park, is a slightly larger-than-life rendering of the two late leaders. It was inspired by an Associated Press photograph taken in 1987 on John Paul’s second pontifical visit to the U.S.
Below is the original AP photo and the new statue of these two great leaders for freedom in the last century.
Albert Camus has long been one of my favorite writers. Indeed, I quoted the Nobel Prize-winning author in my very first blog post (with the quotation reposted here). While Camus always considered himself a “man of the left,” I have long called him “the first neo-conservative“. He had always strongly opposed tyranny which he first witnessed in fascist societies, particularly under the Nazi occupation of Paris, but soon began to see not just in Communists societies, but also in leftist movements.
His opposition to Stalin and Stalinism earned him the scorn of his one-time allies in the French left, including Jean-Paul Sartre, an apologist throughout his life for Soviet tyranny — and a man who dressed up his own participation in the resistance to Nazism.
Sartre became increasingly jealous of Camus after their split, particularly since the Algeria-born Frenchman had produced a far broader range of work than had he. I’d often wondered if maybe Sartre had leaned on his friends in the KGB to dispose of the more talented writer. Camus died in a car accident on January 4, 1960.
Now, David Zincavage, based on an account in an Italian newspaper asks, “Did the KGB arrange the death of Nobel Prize winning writer Albert Camus in a car accident in 1960?”
An article which appeared in the Italian paper Corriere della Sera on August 1 quotes Eastern European scholar Giovanni Catelli, who discovered that the complete version of the Diary of Czech poet and translator Jan Zábrana contained a reference to the death of Albert Camus omitted from abridged French and Italian translations.
Read the whole thing. Well, this story doesn’t support my speculation about Sartre, but does raise some interesting questions.
Remember, Albert Camus was one of the first prominent literary men of the left to publicly criticize Communist. His outspoken critiques of the brutal system could cause more intellectuals to question their defense of the Soviet Union. (more…)
This is the single most effective and chilling campaign ad I’ve seen in quite some time.
Much will be made, no doubt, about this article, noting how Communist thug Fidel Castro considers the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010 (is my name for it starting to make sense now?!) a “miracle” and “about time”.
Now, ask any Tea Partier and he’ll tell you you can’t choose your fans any more than you can choose your family members. Fair enough, but look at what else Fidel wants the US to do, post haste:
…the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform
Hm… climate change
Now, I’m not one to suggest that Obama is taking his cues from our nearest Communist dictator. Just that it surely is curious that he’s pretty much doing just what his “amigo” suggests he should.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)