Home | Community | Message Board


Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Bush?s Socialist Disaster
    #3265906 - 10/22/04 10:28 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Bush?s Socialist Disaster
by Anthony Gregory - October 20, 2004

Republicans have long dabbled in socialism, and our current president is no exception. His Medicare bill, his farm subsidies, and his enormous expansion of federal education spending all amount to "third-way" economic programs that constitute the injection of socialism into a capitalist economy. Social democracy, as Hayek observed, will inevitably push society towards serfdom and totalitarianism, and Bush is guilty of horrendous domestic policies in that direction.

Bush?s most disastrous socialist policy has been the war in Iraq. It has all the makings of economic central planning, and all the ill symptoms as well. No general criticism of government intervention in the economy fails to apply to his adventure in Mesopotamia.

First off, this war, like almost all wars in history, has been funded through the coercive method of taxation ? the forceful transfer of wealth to the tune of more than one hundred billion dollars from the private sector, from the hands that earned it, into the government sector. Libertarians and true free market advocates must oppose any such large coercive redistribution of wealth. Right at the beginning, only considering funding, the Iraq war is as immoral as any welfare program that steals from some to give to others. Furthermore, it suffers under the same economic incentive limitations: there is no reason for government to spend the money efficiently, because it can always use force to take more; there is no incentive for it to succeed in its ostensible goal, because then it loses its rationale for funding.

It is telling that Bush and Kerry can?t even agree on how much the Iraq war has cost the taxpayers. The true cost of government programs is often difficult to measure, almost impossible.

And yet, funding of the Iraq War is only the beginning of its socialist qualities. The entire endeavor has been an attempt by the US government to centrally plan an entire sector of economic activity. The shortages of body armor and weaponry, the misallocation of massive resources, the failure to protect oil refineries and to predict rising costs of occupation ? these were all inevitable symptoms of an attempt to centrally plan such a large undertaking.

What?s more, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was always meant to involve more than a simple military victory over a foreign regime. It was meant to replace it, and to substitute Saddam?s authoritarian regime with US central planning of an entire country?s political economy. Conservatives brag about schools being built, electricity being installed, and water running, while liberals point out, correctly, that such infrastructure is laughably far from completion. Basic features of any modern civilization such as lights and running water become hard enough for governments to manage on their own soil; when one government attempts to plan and carry out the construction and maintenance in a foreign land, with almost uniform local opposition to such paternalistic meddling, it is predictable that such projects will be riddled with failure, incompetence, corruption, and inefficiency. That so many conservatives think it is the proper role of the US government to plan the Iraqi economy, to build Iraqi schools and manage Iraqi utilities, alone demonstrates their failure to grasp the limitations of socialist central planning. That they are convinced the US government is doing such a laudable job abroad in these activities, which they often consider beyond the proper role of government at home, demonstrates how delusional and hypocritical they have become. Blinded by war glory and partisan loyalty, yesterday?s moderate advocates of domestic free markets have become today?s loudest sycophants for US socialism projected abroad.

The US military and its sponsored regime in Iraq have established numerous socialist goals and policies. They have censored the press, attempting to centrally manage the opinions and speech of the Iraqi people. They have instituted curfews and circumscribed towns in barbed wire, attempting to centrally plan the movement of the Iraqi people, as if the whole country were a prison. They have imposed an income tax and gone door-to-door confiscating guns, and have pursued numerous other policies with all the economic limitations and immorality of comparable policies in America, except without the tacit consent of the people being ruled. Without legitimacy in the minds of Iraqis, US socialism in Iraq is bound to fail even worse than at home, where there is at least pervasive acceptance, however passive, of that same government.

Look no further than the new Iraqi constitution to discover whether this war is socialism. Aside from some obvious contradictions and hypocrisy, as well as goals of central management far more ambitious than what the Ba-athist regime attempted in its rule of the country, the constitution contains numerous socialist tenets that any conservative who supported this war must face:
Quote:

The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security. The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.




Whereas in the United States, most conservatives recognize that the government can neither effectively nor legitimately be charged with providing employment and healthcare to the American people, that same government has established a puppet government in Iraq that aims to achieve those very same socialist goals, only this time many conservatives cheer. Of course, these are utopian aspirations, not only given the inability of socialist systems to allocate resources efficiently, but also considering the reality of Iraqi life right now. The country is in the throes of chaotic bloodshed and on the brink of civil war. It is a delusional fantasy to establish healthcare as a positive legal right where the rule of law is not even sufficient to protect the rights of life, liberty and property. Indeed, most Iraqis consider the US-backed regime in Iraq to be the gravest threat to their rights, and so long as it remains, its egalitarian constitution notwithstanding, the "Iraqi state and its governmental units" will probably find the "limits of their resources" tied up in combating insurrection. The only way the government can manage healthcare in Iraq, let alone the schools and utilities, would entail further massive transfers of wealth from Americans to Iraq. Again, what conservatives might find a distasteful use of their tax dollars in America, they defend in another country, probably because they can?t see firsthand the futility and damage done by such central planning.

Of course, the US military engagement in Iraq has had one symptom far more egregious than even the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted and copious property destroyed: the loss of thousands of priceless, irreplaceable human lives. More than a thousand Americans have so far died in this ludicrous war. Tens of thousands of Iraqis appear to have paid a similar price. Uncounted human beings on both sides have been mortally wounded.

These calculations are just statistics in the minds of the central planners ? if even that. Wolfowitz was caught off guard months ago and didn?t even know how many of his countrymen and women had died for his great experiment in Iraq. The Pentagon doesn?t even attempt to keep accurate numbers for Iraqi fatalities. The loss of human life in a war, in numeric terms, is only of interest to the war makers in the crudest sense: for the weighing of strategic and tactical military successes and blunders. And yet, even in these crude terms, our rulers fail to keep up with the numbers.

Human life is the most precious thing on earth, at least as far as most humans regard their own lives. The value is immeasurable, and entirely subjective from the point of view of those living and dead. When someone dies in another country from natural causes, it has no bearing on a stranger living here, and yet for the dead it literally means losing everything; for his family it can mean the entire world. The many thousands dead in the Iraq war can mean a lot to those Americans sympathetic and interested in the news, US foreign policy, and the uses of their tax dollars. But even those of us who consider such tragedies financed by our taxes to be particularly horrifying cannot begin to imagine what it would be like to lose a loved one in a destructive war, unless we have lost one ourselves.

Government programs can?t take in account the importance of a single human life, let alone the significance of thousands of such lives. The same government programs that lose millions, billions and even trillions of dollars to waste ? money that would have been infinitely more productive value in the private sector ? can?t be expected to factor human lives into their operations in any meaningful way. The cruelty and disdain of socialist governments toward human life, most notably the full-blown socialist governments of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and others, is something with which we are all familiar. And yet, even the smallest introduction of socialism into a relatively free economy is the difference between life and death for many human beings who are but faceless statistics, if even that, so far as the central planners are concerned. The Food and Drug Administration is one of the best examples of such antipathy toward human life in the American domestic sphere. As Robert Higgs points out, the FDA doesn?t even maintain estimates of how many people it kills or supposedly saves. The best example we have now of such bureaucratic apathy toward human life, in US foreign policy, is the war in Iraq.

The strategic missteps, tactical blunders, and misallocation of resources acquired through the coercive mechanism of taxation ? these are all predictable problems that come with the territory of socialist central planning, and war is no exception. The disregard for human life is the most immeasurable disaster involved in socialist systems, and the Iraq war is the best modern example the US state has to offer.

It must also be remembered that the Iraq war is part of a larger socialist scheme to use US government force to remake the entire Middle East and all "terrorist-sponsoring" states into a friendlier mold. As the occupation yields more American casualties every month, the war advocates insist that the problem is not enough funding, and that the neighboring countries sponsor terrorism, allowing insurgents to cross the border into occupied Iraq. The answer, of course, is more funding and to spread the same type of war and occupation to adjacent locations. More funding is the same answer we always hear from the left when we point out the dilapidated public schools and defunct government healthcare programs. Extending the program to neighboring places is the same answer we hear when we point out the failures of rent control and gun control. It is no coincidence that the conservatives insist their own pet socialist project will work, once it?s expanded and extended. Thankfully, the government can only do so much.

The silver lining, as every libertarian thinker from Mises to Rand has understood, is that, in the long term, the inherent incompetence and inefficiency of central planning limit the scope of socialist disaster. Centrally planned systems are bound to fail, eventually. Without these economic limitations, nothing would stop governmental apathy or even outright contempt toward innocent human life from translating into infinite suffering on the part of the victims of socialist central planning. How many more millions would have fallen victim to the Soviet Union if communism worked? How many more thousands would die in the Middle East if the US government could effectively manage the affairs of other countries? The black market was all that kept many people alive in the USSR, and the same was probably true for Iraq during the 1990s when the US-UN sanctions deprived so many of food and medicine. It is a bright side that government?s evils will always be restrained by its own incompetence.

We have some reason to hope when we see that, just as all socialist programs eventually collapse under the weight of their own lack of sustainability, the war in Iraq is steadily heading towards its conclusive failure. How tragic that so much was lost to see the same inevitable lesson that other wars, and other socialist programs, should have taught us all by now.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecarbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
Re: Bush’s Socialist Disaster [Re: Evolving]
    #3266024 - 10/22/04 11:10 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

This is one of the most perverted interpretations of socialism I've ever seen in my life.


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 4 months, 17 days
Re: Bush?s Socialist Disaster [Re: Evolving]
    #3266062 - 10/22/04 11:23 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

excellent article.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Bush’s Socialist Disaster [Re: carbonhoots]
    #3266120 - 10/22/04 11:42 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Is it your contention that war is an individualist enterprise? Are the central planning and socialist policies pursued by the Bush administration not socialist because they are done by republicans?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinekaulbach
Stranger
Registered: 10/23/04
Posts: 1
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: Bush?s Socialist Disaster [Re: Evolving]
    #3269275 - 10/23/04 10:25 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)


I have to agree with the second poster - the article has an original \ amusing angle on the subject, but the central planning = socialist charge shows a very poor understanding of socialism and \ or central planning, and thereafter the ascription of "socialist" to some of the objectives in Iraq just gets daft.

There are some interesting points here, but the language is very confused.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecall_me_kido
Philosopher
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/26/04
Posts: 354
Loc: In your dreams
Last seen: 7 years, 8 days
Re: Bush?s Socialist Disaster [Re: kaulbach]
    #3327528 - 11/06/04 02:09 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

I, as a rule, do not study socialistic principles. In fact I do not study any form of centralized government. I am not interested in tackling a sect of civilization whos ideals are formed to create a controlled enviornment intended for public and/or majority benefit. None of us are the majority nor the public.

Since I know very little about socialism, I cannot claim an opinion on this articles bearing related to our current economic leadership and its decisions. However, I think those of you who are criticizing its points should take a step back and ponder if you are an expert to judge it either? Do you know enough to argue some of the specifics hes stated?

The war in Iraq is wrong, period. Whether or not it has anything to do with crossthreads of social policy or communism is irrelevant.

The article would be properly titled, "Bush's economic disaster" and rightly so. People are taxed, fine. But taxation has always been for the good of the community forwarding it, represented by the understanding and comptetant leaders imposing the tax. I do not work to pay for Iraquis education, or economic development. I have no concern over the futures of its citizens.

Iraq is not our concern. Iraqs future is not our concern. Terrorism may be our concern although exaggerated and manipulated, and the billions of dollars being spent quarterly here in the U.S would be much better allocated to adjusting home defense and not meddling in the concerns of other unrelated societies.

If you justify this war and the funds being spent on it, you are either uninformed or misinformed, most of which are equally pittiful. I hope that you can look beyond a title, and beyond a single concept to see the greater truth behind a persons thought out opinion. The resistance to this article makes me lose hope for our future.

Awsome article Evolving. Keep it up


Kido


--------------------
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein (1875-1955)

"A is A" -Aristotle


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisible1stimer
Religion=Rape
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 1,280
Loc: Amerika
Re: Bush?s Socialist Disaster [Re: Evolving]
    #3327589 - 11/06/04 02:28 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

you forgot to mention the handouts to the airline industry and the taliban.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 6 days
Re: Bush?s Socialist Disaster [Re: Evolving]
    #3327686 - 11/06/04 03:09 PM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Another anarchist in Libertarian clothing. From his bio: "Anthony Gregory is a writer and musician living in Berkely" That's almost enough said right there. I'm with carbonhoots. What does waging war have to do with socialiism? If you think that taxation and socialism are equivalent then you need to get a new dictionary. And the whole nonsensical screed is essentially an attack on any kind of collective action on the basis that it will be funded by taxation. Drivel, even without the mischaracterization of the situation in Iraq.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Bush?s Socialist Disaster [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3329097 - 11/07/04 01:00 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)


Drivel, even without the mischaracterization of the situation in Iraq.

I was pissed too.. Not even one mention of all the cheering Iraqi's and the fact that Saddam Hussein killed his own people.
























:cuckoo:


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Bush?s Socialist Disaster [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #3329516 - 11/07/04 04:23 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Not even one mention of all the cheering Iraqi's

If you mean the cheering Iraqis on the statue of Saddam they were handpicked exiles brought into the square to cheer.

and the fact that Saddam Hussein killed his own people.

The bulk of America's allies have "killed their own people". And remember he killed most of them years ago when Bush and Reagan were his closest allies. If you want to hold him responsible fine, but hold Bush Snr responsible too and hang them both from the same lampost.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/20/99
Posts: 894
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 10 hours, 32 minutes
Re: Bush?s Socialist Disaster [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3329886 - 11/07/04 10:55 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Another anarchist in Libertarian clothing.
[...]
And the whole nonsensical screed is essentially an attack on any kind of collective action on the basis that it will be funded by taxation.


Read up a bit on your political theory... anarchism is all about collective action, in fact, anarchism is pure collectivism without any central planning. Central planning is replaced by radical and direct democracy.

Just thought this needed mention...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Bush?s Socialist Disaster [Re: Aldous]
    #3329957 - 11/07/04 11:29 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

Aldous writes:

Read up a bit on your political theory... anarchism is all about collective action, in fact, anarchism is pure collectivism without any central planning.

The modern Marxists and other collectivists who have hijacked the term "anarchist" certainly believe this. I believe they normally refer to themselves as "anarchosyndicalists" and even "libertarian socialists" and a number of other euphemisms.

By the definition of even their own "founding fathers" (i.e. Kropotkin, Proudhon and others), this is a contradiction, but Collectivists in general have no problems with contradictions.


pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/20/99
Posts: 894
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 10 hours, 32 minutes
Re: Bush?s Socialist Disaster [Re: Phred]
    #3329975 - 11/07/04 11:44 AM (12 years, 1 month ago)

"Anarchy", ethymologically, means the absence of government. It is not the same as "anomia", the absence of law. The anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist idea of anarchism is perfectly consistent with the definition. Government directly by the people, without the intermediary of an administration, is a form of anarchy. Even a (rightist) libertarian would agree with that. But to make it work, a lot of things must be taken care of collectively, or else you find yourself in "anomia" very quickly.
The term wasn't "hijacked".

Agreed, anarchism probably wouldn't work on a large (nationwide) scale. Neither would libertarianism in America: it would be the jungle disguised as a "system". But it does work wery well in smaller communities (which amounts to anarcho-syndicalism).


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop for: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* sarah palin, the socialist
( 1 2 3 4 all )
KingOftheThing 3,519 64 11/01/08 02:13 PM
by xFrockx
* Capitalism or Socialism?
( 1 2 3 all )
PotSmokinHippie 5,494 40 08/01/01 07:14 PM
by svoboda
* God is an Anarchist.
( 1 2 all )
Baby_Hitler 2,988 33 07/21/05 03:12 PM
by rogue_pixie
* hey socialists...
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 1,750 24 06/26/04 11:20 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* An Anarchistic Socialistic Democratic Society
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Teotzlcoatl 4,794 63 07/27/07 05:57 PM
by Teotzlcoatl
* The Reluctant Anarchist Evolving 1,342 17 06/12/04 11:27 PM
by RandalFlagg
* anarchy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Anonymous 5,520 110 03/10/03 11:06 PM
by Psilocybeingzz
* HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST
( 1 2 3 all )
lonestar2004 3,689 40 02/25/07 02:16 PM
by gluke bastid

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,332 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Crestline Sales - MycoPath
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.099 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.