http://032a410.netsolhost.com/WordPress/?p=822 Blog Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:23:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://032a410.netsolhost.com/WordPress/?p=822&cpage=1#comment-71 dustbury.com » Marx, Lenin, and herpes Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:02:25 +0000 http://032a410.netsolhost.com/WordPress/?p=822#comment-71 [...] Dr. G. Keith Smith on the subject of, um, a social disease: For years I have resented the desire of socialists (yes, they are on both sides of the aisle) to use Uncle Sam to confiscate my earnings and the future earnings of my children. Now I am thinking about things differently. You see, while I resent “sharing” property against my will, what I have come to understand is that it is the justification for this confiscation that commands resentment. Basically, others are sharing with me against my will: their problems, not their wealth. It occurs to me that this is the essence of socialism. One person’s problem is everyone’s problem. Your problems are mine, mine are yours. Embracing this concept precedes the theft necessary to “tidy things up,” to make things fair, to treat another’s problems. I wonder now if that should be the focus of property rights advocates, the denial of this concept, or, “your problems are yours, not mine.” After all, private property is secure once this problem sharing paradigm is rejected. Sharing problems with others that want no part of it is like giving someone tuberculosis or a venereal disease. I think this is a perfect analogy and therefore, I will henceforth refer to socialism as “gonorrhea socialism,” as this loaded phrase inevitably leads one to the faulty premise. [...] [...] Dr. G. Keith Smith on the subject of, um, a social disease: For years I have resented the desire of socialists (yes, they are on both sides of the aisle) to use Uncle Sam to confiscate my earnings and the future earnings of my children. Now I am thinking about things differently. You see, while I resent “sharing” property against my will, what I have come to understand is that it is the justification for this confiscation that commands resentment. Basically, others are sharing with me against my will: their problems, not their wealth. It occurs to me that this is the essence of socialism. One person’s problem is everyone’s problem. Your problems are mine, mine are yours. Embracing this concept precedes the theft necessary to “tidy things up,” to make things fair, to treat another’s problems. I wonder now if that should be the focus of property rights advocates, the denial of this concept, or, “your problems are yours, not mine.” After all, private property is secure once this problem sharing paradigm is rejected. Sharing problems with others that want no part of it is like giving someone tuberculosis or a venereal disease. I think this is a perfect analogy and therefore, I will henceforth refer to socialism as “gonorrhea socialism,” as this loaded phrase inevitably leads one to the faulty premise. [...]

]]> http://032a410.netsolhost.com/WordPress/?p=822&cpage=1#comment-66 Alex Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:29:33 +0000 http://032a410.netsolhost.com/WordPress/?p=822#comment-66 How about just "Ethics Denialists"? Kind of interesting to think that if you were to remove ethics from political preference, you would only choose the ideology which provides the most immediate benefit: as a dog would choose to take the small treat 3 ft from him rather than the larger treat 10 ft from him. The point is if you remove ethics from politics, which was accomplished at the inception of politics, everybody wants the property of the those wealthier, and wants those poorer to respect their property rights. I would argue that neo-socialism has the same putrid smell as neo-conservatism mainly because either side removes justifiable ethics from their decision making. The only difference is that one is much worse at converting their lack of ethics into someone else's property. How about just “Ethics Denialists”? Kind of interesting to think that if you were to remove ethics from political preference, you would only choose the ideology which provides the most immediate benefit: as a dog would choose to take the small treat 3 ft from him rather than the larger treat 10 ft from him. The point is if you remove ethics from politics, which was accomplished at the inception of politics, everybody wants the property of the those wealthier, and wants those poorer to respect their property rights. I would argue that neo-socialism has the same putrid smell as neo-conservatism mainly because either side removes justifiable ethics from their decision making. The only difference is that one is much worse at converting their lack of ethics into someone else’s property.

]]>