Response

I received a nasty letter from one of my readers regarding my rant about the Social Security information and my use of the word "gay".

First off, I would like to apologize for the use of the word gay in a derogotory sense. Old habits die hard, and in the passion of my anger, my better judgement didn't notice what I was doing. Please accept my apology, and note that I have remedied the title.

Second of all, I will NOT apologize for my "anti-socialist propaganda", because I don't have to. I have a right to free speech, and I'm gonna use it. My reader asked me why, if I was so against certain things that I participated in them. I'm participating in them because I don't have the energy or the time at this point in my life to fight for my rights. There's the honest truth. The drivers liscense too, is a violation of your right to travel, but oh well.

As for Socialism. "If you are 20 and you don't support Socialism, you are heartless; If you are 40 and you still support Socialism, you are stupid." Let me interpert this--Socialism sounds great when you are idealistic young person "Free health care, free education, free housing! What a great idea." But when you grow up, you realize that idealistic ideas are just that--idealistic. Who pays for that "free health care" YOU DO, and everyone else does. In this Country, we are a Constitutional Republic meaning individiul property rights are most important.

Here's a better definition which I borrowed from Chrononhotonthologos.com

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

So as I was saying, my money is my property, and since we don't live in a democracy, you have NO CLAIM to my property, AKA, MY MONEY to pay YOUR HEALTH BILLS. Show me the part of the Constitution that says you have a RIGHT to healthcare. You don't, I don't. None of us do.

Now, to address another thing--the healthcare system is so expensive BECAUSE of government intervention and the providing of Medicare and Medicaid. What incentive does a person have to find, or what incentive does a hospital or doctor have to provide, inexpensive healthcare, when the government will pay whatever the hospital/doctor charges? NONE. Government trade regulations on the transport of drugs from other countries make prices go up because there is little to no competition, Capitalism's most important element! The US Governent requires so much testing for a medicine before it can be released that the testing racks up one BILLION DOLLARS at LEAST just in saftey testing, not counting development itself! This also means that the drug companies have no incentive to research "orphan drugs" (drugs for rare diseases) because they WILL NOT BE PROFITABLE after the government forces them to spend all this money testing them. So don't blame capitalism for the failing healthcare system. Blame the Socialist/Communist direction of our country. Because that's were we are... besides, my even my reader agreed that our system wasn't working for him, so why would we make the problem worse through futher regulation and taxation?

To address Socialism as a whole, I've again saved myself some anguish by visiting An Analysis of The Communist Manifesto, which received this letter from a reader:

I am not sure I understand all of what you mean in the following paragarphs:

"In essence Marx was wrong not because there was no class struggle. There was indeed class struggle throughout most of history. He was wrong because he could not see that the dialectic process would work to elevate the working class to the entrepreneur class and not pull all of society down to the lowest common denominator.

We are still in the throws of this process. Eventually the efficiencies brought about by the capitalist system, if allowed to operate in a free environment, will provide a high standard of living for most of the world."

What do you mean by, "He was wrong because he could not see that the dialectic process would work to elevate the working class to the entrepreneur class and not pull all of society down to the lowest common denominator"?

Be careful when you write, "Eventually the efficiencies brought about by the capitalist system, if allowed to operate in a free environment, will provide a high standard of living for most of the world." The efficiences you are talking about can occur in a Socialist/Communist system if planned accordingly or adaptively. Capitalism, in a free environment, is a political push for free trade. It will not increase the standard of living for most of the world, because without socialist influence, multinational corporations would not increase those standards in "developing countries". Also, standard of living is relative to technology, population, pollution, and time. An overall increase in the standard of living is very temporary in capitalist systems, unless they find new markets to exploit.

From a resource perspective, a free environment does not exist. A capitalist scenario requires greater environmental damage than all but fascism as of yet.

Sincerely,

Ash

Their response:

Dear Ash,

You are quite mistaken. The greatest environmental damage in history was done via the mindless and inefficient waste of resources in the Soviet Union over a period of 70 years. The Soviet government also perpetrated the deaths of millions in the name of social advancement. In the U.S. the environment has gotten better because the capitalist economy creates better, cleaner and more efficient ways of dealing with waste.

People complain that the U.S. uses so much of the world's oil resources, but the fact of the matter is that we use it more efficiently than any other nation. This means that we can produce and provide a decent standard of living creating goods shipped all over the world with the lowest ecological footprint. That is what efficiency is all about.

Socialism is naturally inefficient for two reasons. First it takes away the incentive of workers to work to the best of their ability and for entrepreneurs to invest, maintain their property or conserve their resources. Second, the best decisions are made where the action takes place, on the level closest to the need, this means that centralized planning of an economy is necessarily less efficient. The bread lines in the USSR and the grim lifestyle of the "proletariat" everywhere communism has been tried should be proof enough of this maxim.

Hope this clears up any questions you have.

Cordially,

W.J. Rayment


Thank you, at least I'm not the only one who noticed this.