This Reply To Karl Got Too Long…

…so I made it a full post.

Here’s the real deal, Karl, and listen close because this is the root of your lunacy.

You claim that socialism/Marxism/communism is the route to fairness, equality and individual freedom through total democracy – but to achieve that, you have to force people to do things against their will, be things that they do not choose to be and eliminate any sense of security they might have through the elimination of private property.

I don’t know, that doesn’t sound like fairness, equality or freedom to me.

And please don’t be dumb enough to claim that these systems don’t force people into these situations because history and logic proves you wrong. How else can a centrally planned economy work? If there are a shortage of ditch diggers in New York, would the central authority not have to balance that by importing ditch diggers from Kansas, even if they did not want to go? If there is an oversupply of engineers, would the schools not be directed to stop educating engineers and force those who wanted to be an engineer into another area where there was a “need”? If cities are getting to the population limits as decided by the planners, will people not be stopped from moving to the cities or forced to leave even if their families live there? If you do not own your property cannot the state manipulate your access to food, clothing and shelter to “manage” your behavior?

In my time in China, I saw all of this happen. I saw entire villages moved to large construction sites to provide labor. I saw trains jammed with people going home for holiday because the government had moved them to a labor camp. I know people who were denied permission to move from one city to the next because the government would not provide them a house. I saw people manipulated by hunger – where food rations were shipped to the interior so that people could choose to live in Shanghai and starve or go to Wuhan and eat (the modern Communist Party knows the world frowns on them doing this at the point of a gun, so they do it now with bags of rice).

I saw it with my own eyes, Karl. I didn’t read it in a book or see it on the Discovery Channel. I know it happened because I was there while it was happening.

Oh, right. This is Maoist communism, it isn’t your brand. Your brand of Utopian communism would never do this.

Except that this level of control is necessary for any centrally planned system to function – and all collectivist/socialist/Marxist/communist systems are centrally planned.

These forced actions all have occurred/are occurring now because about 20 seconds after a collectivist government is formed, doing something “for the good of the people” becomes the “for the good of the state”, except that “the state” no longer represents the citizen, it represents itself, separate and apart from “the people”.

That is actually what today’s America has in common with Marxist states – and the reason that we are here has nothing to do with the real America – in the real America, the Constitution is the protection against our current situation. But in the America of today, the infiltration of socialist/Marxist/communist thought has perverted our system to the point that it has taken on the characteristics of a centrally planned collectivist state…and the modern communists, the so-called “progressives”, twist logic to blame the Constitution for the very problems they caused. They can’t recognize that they are at fault because like you, their solution is to do more of what is causing the problem – as if injecting more poison will counteract the poison already in the body.

In the American experiment of individual freedom, for me to succeed requires me to ask or demand absolutely nothing of you. In your system, for you to “succeed”, you require all from me – my productivity, my property and by extension, my future, are all owned by the collective to benefit you.

Freedom in a socialist/Marxist/communist system is an illusory concept. As I have pointed out before, collectivists believe that freedom means “freedom from” things. My ideology is about “freedom of“, as in freedom of opportunity, freedom of self-determination, freedom of liberty. You define it as “freedom from“, freedom from economic, political and social risk. I would go as far as to say that it can be equated to freedom from choice – because you think the planners should make most, if not all of your personal decisions – actually, in your world, there are not personal decisions because there are no personal desires, no personal property, no individuality – there is only the “good of the state”.

My ideals require minimal regulation and control, yours require maximum regulation and control. It is clear that you believe that a collective society is the way to go but unfortunately for you, America is not built for collectivists. It is built on individual freedom and voluntary collaboration. American capitalism has provided the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people in the history of mankind. Even communist states like China and Cuba turn to the global free market to solve their internal economic problems – caused by their collectivist national economies – thereby proving my statement that socialists/Marxists/Communists don’t really want to eliminate capitalism, you just want just enough of our capitalism to pay for their socialism/Marxism/communism.

Sure. We have problems and corruption – but to quote Winston Churchill:

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

I like my corruption with a side of freedom, not a hot, steaming dish of oppression.

What is fair? Is it more fair for a person to have the opportunity to succeed on his own merits, even if he might fail – or for that possibility of failure to be avoided by removing the opportunity for success?

When I read the foolish tripe you write, I always think of this:

36 thoughts on “This Reply To Karl Got Too Long…

  1. Utah,

    Karl is going to tell you that “his” brand of Marxism will be a spontaneous societal transformation into a Borg collective, only without a queen: everyone will have their own thoughts, but they will all have the exact same desires, goals, opinions, feelings, etc.

    Which brings us back to what you said (and I’ve been saying for a while): anyone who truly believes this is possible is insane.

    • The genius of America is that the Founders recognized the propensity of man to attempt to be, if not God, at least a god. They had a monarchy to use as a comparison and they set about finding ways for a government to be powerful enough to govern, yet constrained enough to protect individual liberty and changeable enough to correct the course when we drifted without compromising our foundational principles.

      The minute a collectivist state is created none of that is possible. The only difference between a collectivist state and a monarchy is the number of “kings”.

      There is nothing wrong with America – America has always been a “some assembly required” nation – it has just become arrogantly fashionable to open the box, toss out the instructions (the Constitution) and try to assemble the parts without regard to their fit and just like any good Lego project, a couple of pieces snapped in the wrong place changes the outcome of the finished assembly dramatically – or may even prevent it from being completed at all.

      • Well, I’ve said it before and I think I’ll say it again (since you’ve opened the door):

        The “picture” that the Constitution tells us how to make is the Declaration of Independence.

        Even those who claim to support the Constitution have forgotten that it was designed to work hand-in-hand with the Declaration. The latter is of little use without the former, which is what you’re saying but too few understand.

        I also agree with you, though I see it in different terms: there is nothing wrong with the original intent of our founders. Our problems have developed because we no longer embrace their principles and ideals. That, and we’ve become an immoral people, and our founders warned us that the government they designed is of no use to an immoral people.

        So, where people like Karl see the cause of all problems in a material sense, our founders knew the cause was the failings of the human heart. But, because the Marxist denies God and anything that is not material, he has no way of accounting for the human heart. This is why his ideas always fail and always will.

        • Hmmmmmm:

          I believe in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. If I look at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I would compare them to a business’ statement of core values (the Declaration) and a mission statement (the Constitution). I believe that these tenets are statements of principle based on natural law and therefore transcendent through time without need for modification or adaptation. They don’t tell us what to do; they tell us how we should do it.

          • Thanks, I had forgotten that. But then, I never meant to imply you didn’t believe this. I suppose I was very un-artful in trying to express my own opinion. My apologies; I’ll work on this…

          • I believe the beauty in our founder’s design is: They don’t tell us “how to do it.”

            They prevent “man” from deciding, wrongfully, and through “government” ordering others “how to do it” wrongly.

            I think by limiting government, “man” is left free, unencumbered, to discover how we should do it.

            ?See the difference?

  2. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution of 1789:

    So simple, so concise, so perfect. Pure Genius. So much so that I have been stating since Law School, after throwing off the chains of indoctrinated public school Darwinism: “Inspired by G-d”.

    America’s founding fathers understood human nature unlike any group of leaders ever have.
    They were Genius and Good, Unselfish and Selfish, all at the same time.
    They understood, if a person were allowed to chase their dreams as they chose, the human spirit and mind would be unleashed in ways never dreamed or conceived of; all humankind would be richer and more productive, including themselves (selfish, see?).

    America’s founders are the only “group” of “individuals” in history to give up absolute power and design a framework to prevent governmental tyranny, in order to attain the goals they breathed life in to: “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”.

    Our founders realized, “less than common men” would attempt the destruction of liberty, and I believe that is why they wrote so voluminously before they died. To provide a record for future generations to learn from their inspiration when others have forgotten or purposely buried liberty.

    From the time of our founders generation’s death, non-virtuous men have been destroying freedom and liberty at every opportunity. Misrepresenting, hiding, burning, and burying, the flame of liberty all the while.

    Yet, here “we” are; re-learning, understanding, sharing, and spreading the truth of liberty and freedom.

    A new oligarchy? Those who support and force this upon us, are evil, stupid, ignorant, etc.

    Part of me thinks “Karl” can’t be this stupid or ignorant, so he must be evil. Only “Karl” knows the answer to that.

    People and groups of people like “Karl” will be vicious in their attempt to stamp out the embers of liberty.

    We Americans, must realize their viciousness, and react appropriately for America’s and our posterity.

    • My Wife and some friends and I have been re-reading the Consritution and first 10 Amendments along with some of the Anti-Federalist papers.

      They really were pure thinkers producing a body of work of Pure Genius as yousay !

      • Don,

        PLease consider reading the Anti-Federalists along with it, because the Federalists can’t be fully understood or appreciated appart from the concerns of the Anti-Federalists.

    • “Part of me thinks “Karl” can’t be this stupid or ignorant, so he must be evil. Only “Karl” knows the answer to that”.
      This is exactly what Romanian, and to some extent all Eastern Europeans, Chinese, NKorean and Vietnamese, students were taught by their professors under Ceausescu (and under their respective communist regimes before 1989): “the economists offering a theoretical support of the capitalist model [Marshall, Hayek, Friedman, Keynes, Bastiat, etc] can’t be this stupid or ignorant [as to not see the superiority of the Marxist model, meaning their particular Romanian way which they considered the purest incarnation of Marxism], so their motives must be petty and evil, they are nothing more than paid puppets & loudspeakers of the bourgeoisie”.

      See how extremes always join together? They were Leftists, you are Rightist, but the way of (mis)reasoning is EXACTLY the same.

  3. Karl is the Perfect Foolish Foil for Joe and Utah.

    He’s almost like a Jerry Lewis Commie Parrot … the the wry Constitutional Intellect of our resident “Dean Martins”.

    ( not implying you guys drink Martinis or anthing though…)

  4. Modern China has not eliminated private property. Don’t be so dumb. The collective is made of the people and so it follows it acts in the best interest of the people. Bourgeoisie concepts like freedom and private property be damned. Freedom is a myth, the right-wing goes on about opportunity and potential, concepts that don’t produce results. Nothing is funnier than a rich man telling a poor man that they have the same opportunity and potential, that they are essentially equal. Communism isn’t about fairness and equality it is about class conflict and the laboring class throwing off the parasitic capitalist. Capitalist want to keep the working class in ignorance, denying such things as differences in classes and power. Saying the parasite and his host are the same.

    • [For some reason, I feel like Foghorn Leghorn speaking to an ignorant little chicken hawk when I reply to Karl 🙂 ]

      “The collective is made of the people and so it follows it acts in the best interest of the people.”

      The “collective” includes the land and property owner — so to work in favor of the workers is to work against the interest of the owners and vise verse. But this is irrelevant because THE COLLECTIVE DOES NOT, NEVER HAS AND NEVER WILL EXIST! It doesn’t even exist in nature — nowhere. That’s because you cannot get a body of individuals to act exactly the same in ANY endeavor. If that’s how things worked, “evolution” would be impossible (sorry, couldn’t resist the dig at the foundation of Karl’s ideology).

      “Freedom is a myth”

      then accept your lot as my slave and shut the pie hole.

      “opportunity and potential, concepts that don’t produce results.”

      Really? Tell that to Jobs and Gates.

      “Nothing is funnier than a rich man telling a poor man that they have the same opportunity and potential, that they are essentially equal.”

      I bet IBM would have agreed with you — BEFORE JOBS AND GATES! (dolt/idiot).

      BTW: Karl, have you ever worked for the collective, or a poor man?

      “Communism isn’t about fairness and equality it is about class conflict and the laboring class throwing off the parasitic capitalist.”

      So you’re saying Communism is about the utopian dreams of a greedy, lazy, cowardly man? I mean, you must be, because their is not such thing as “class struggle.” So this Communism you speak of must be equally fictional.

      BTW: that makes the second nut you’ve found in as many days. Now that you have a pair, do you think you could exercise a little fortitude and take care of yourself instead of insisting that others should steal for you so you don’t have to work?

      “Saying the parasite and his host are the same.”

      No, not at all. You’re a parasite and everyone reading this can tell you are very different from the hosts off whom you are insisting you be given a right to feed.

      [candy from a baby]

    • Where in there did I say that China had eliminated private property? They actually started allowing the ownership of private property when they realized that the communist model sucked and they were starving.

      Karl – your hatred of anyone with the ability to do more than you is apparent, as is your envy of that person and the idiotic idea that somehow if I succeed, I must have harmed you in some way to get there, that somehow my very existence oppresses you.

      There are just too many “rags to riches” stories in America (mine included) where people of all races, economic levels and starting financial circumstances have “made it” for your dumbass point to be right.

      But that’s right, it is just like Marx said, this is all a fiction. If you can dismiss reality as “fiction”, then anything is possible, correct. Post-modernism strikes again.

      Communism isn’t about fairness and equality it is about class conflict and the laboring class throwing off the parasitic capitalist.

      If it isn’t about “fairness and equality” then praytell what is the fucking point? Perpetual revolution for the perpetual victim class? Perpetual anarchy because you wallow in fear that someone might just be smarter, prettier, more driven than your lazy covetous ass and they will benefit from it?

      I hate to tell you this chief – but there is always someone smarter, prettier and harder working out there than you. It’s called individuality – not even the coercive force of tyrannical communism can change that.

      I don’t need your liberation. Thanks but no thanks. It is way too expensive.

      Communism is a system for the weak and fearful – the weak of mind, the weak of spirit and the weak in morality.

      You prove that with every comment.

      • You imply China is communist and/or socialist.

        The capitalist are not members of the collective since their property is not controlled collectively, but privately. The struggle for socialism is to collectivize the means of production, which also creates collective consciousness and action.

    • Karl, what about a wealthy man who started out as a dirt-poor man telling a poor man that he can get where the wealthy man is by the same opportunity the wealthy man took? That sounds like honest encouragement to me. Studies have shown that most of the 1% you hate so much started their lives in the bottom third of the economic strata. They got to be 1-percenters through this odd concept called … hard work.

  5. Joe,

    You are correct. I traced Karl’s i.p. address to a galaxy near Alpha Centauri. Came from a spacecraft with registration number Borg 911.

  6. @Utah
    look at reality, look at the people who work overtime and still struggle to stay in houses and to pay the bills. You idealist can’t see reality, all you see are Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, you don’t see the millions in poverty. Oh wait, if you have a microwave in your house you are not poor. There is no poverty, there is no single human being living the labor of another. Everyone who is rich and works super hard, and poor people aren’t poor and are lazy. Do you all honestly believe an honest day’s work earns an honest living. That income is a function of hard work and intelligence. Do you all honestly believe those without capital have the same amount of capital the capitalist have to invest. You guys are so blind to reality, to justify you idealism, your blind faith in the ‘meritocratic’ capitalist system. You are incapable of viewing reality and making conclusions from the evidence.

  7. Pingback: Comrade Karl Implies Murder for the Bourgeoisie | The Rio Norte Line

  8. Karl, it’s funny that you use Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as examples, for they are both hypocrites as much as the Hollywood elite. The fruits of their labour was achieved through capitalism. The govt. elite was achieved by crony capitalism.

    There has always been and will always be poverty. It is the individual’s choice (not the govt.’s) to change their situation. I do not find it morally right to pay for another unless I so desire. Is that selfish or unfair? I think not. If I should like nudie pics of Don and he is willing to work hard to make them perfect for me, it is fair that I pay him what they are worth. But let’s take it a step further. Let’s say I want to market Don’s nudie pics. It is only fair that I take a cut. Also, I would be exposing him to a whole new market, thus his income would grow exponentially.

    Don; call me.

    • Kells,

      Gates and Jobbs are no different than the rest of the people who find themselves “at the top.” Once they get there, they don’t want company, so the use their money to make sure no one else can do what they did. This is why so many people think there is value in the dogma Karl spews, but where is “property” responsible for what these men do to others? It isn’t. It just gives them ONE ability to do what evil is in their hearts. You could just as easily be a poor immigrant who claims to be from Hawaii, go the “public service” route and get elected to the Presidency where you can then do what you want without need to worry about money or property. Same result, different path — BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT THE HEART OF THE INDIVIDUAL, not “stuff.”

      [The preceding message was direct at Comrade Karl and Marxists everywhere, not at the loveable Kells]

      • OR … They use their wealth to try and Mold Public Opinion through “Foundatioms”…..The Ford Foundation the Carnegie Foundation……on and on up to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

        (1) Like Joe says …. affect Legislation to Keep the Middle and Upper Middle Class from moving into their Economic “Club”. With….Ever increasing Income Taxes ….. Gov’t Agency Regulations ….. Sharades like Buffet’s secretary versus his Taxes and other Media events.

        (2) Establish socalled “Social Justice” Foundations to Promote Class envy, Change Public opinion through Statist Curriculum changes in the Education System and affect Public policy on Social issues like Healthcare by appealing to people’s insecurities, racial hatred and Class Warefare.

    • Way to go Kells.

      May I add? Another Fatal flaw of the ism’s.
      The Marxists argument is wealth is a
      Zero sum game.

      As Joe or Utah once exemplified: Marxists argue all the wealth in the world is in a bucket. So if one person works hard and accumulates wealth, then he has STOLEN that wealth from others. Nonsense.

      Wealth has an exponential growth rate. As people work and create things, they literally create wealth.

      Marxists do not create, they take or steal from those who do.

      • tell me how those without capital or even spare time are expected to create wealth? Is the one step from homelessness to mansion owner, walk into an investment banker office, somehow managed not to get kicked out, and work really hard and become and investment banker, or somehow become friends with the guy who has the idea behind the next facebook, who also happens to be homeless.

        You capitalist are idealist who ignore man material reality? Why do you ignore reality? Because Glenn Beck and company don’t want you to realize the Marxist’s truth about economy and life?

        • Because even poor people have ideas, Karl. In America, you are not required to stay poor.

          Your ideology is so pessimistic, so fatalistic.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.