While politics is ostensibly about governance, suggesting that it does something constructive, in reality is often an activity for its own sake. In other words, the purpose of politics is to serve politicians. Recent news, excerpted after the Read More, provide examples of politicians engaged in the crazy pointless things. We have “Green Czars” who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy; legislators who play solitaire on their laptops while session is in progress; bankrupt government agencies; health care that is really about empowering the taxman; and our favorite North Korean Dear Leader creating a second source of fissile material, as if one were not enough. In order to keep doing these bizarre things, politicians need power. Why? So they can get more power. There doesn’t have to be a reason for their activity, only an apparent reason. The real goal of many government “reforms” and initiatives may simply be to help politicians get their hands on more authority.For what purpose, one might ask? Why do people play solitaire? Simply because.
- Green jobs czar signed ‘truther’ statement in 2004 – The Back Story – Washington Times
-
President Obama’s “green jobs czar” Van Jones has been targeted again and again by conservatives for his controversial views and now they’ll have another item to use as fodder.
-
His name is listed with 99 other prominent signatories supporting such an investigation on the 911Truth.org website, including Code Pink co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodi Evans, comedienne Janeane Garofalo, Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and others. He’s identified as the executive director for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights on the statement, which he founded before going to the White House. The statement is available here. Mr. Jones is number 46.
-
“I think in most cases they spoke to them personally,” he added. “No one’s name was put on that list without them knowing it.”
-
UPDATE: A response was provided to reporters Thursday evening. In it, Mr. Jones apologized for signing the statement and said he doesn’t feel that way today and never has had such thoughts, although the 911Truth group claims to have personally confirmed support from all of their signers.
-
- CT Legislators Play Solitaire During Session | NBC Connecticut
-
A photo captured by an Associated Press photographer showed two lawmakers playing solitaire online during a special session to pass a two-year budget in the state.
-
“It’s bad enough that taxes and spending are going up,” Foley said in a letter, which he also posted on his campaign Web site. “It’s even worse to think that our elected representatives would rather play computer games than listen to arguments against their reckless tax-and-spend philosophy.”
-
- Loan Losses Spark Concern Over FHA – WSJ.com
-
The Federal Housing Administration, hit by increasing mortgage-related losses, is in danger of seeing its reserves fall below the level demanded by Congress, according to government officials, in a development that could raise concerns about whether the agency needs a taxpayer bailout.
-
Rising defaults have eaten through the FHA’s cushion. Some 7.8% of FHA loans at the end of the second quarter were 90 days late or more, or in foreclosure, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, a figure roughly equal to the national average for all loans. That is up from 5.4% a year ago.
-
If its reserves fall short, the agency is obliged to notify Congress, which could spark a commotion over the extent to which the government is funding losses in the housing market. Some housing analysts have said losses might lead the FHA to pull back lending, which has helped boost flagging housing demand.
-
- Health care reform means more power for the IRS | Washington Examiner
-
In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.
AdvertisementUnder the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an “acceptable” health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don’t have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.
The Democrats’ plan would require all Americans to have “acceptable” insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of “acceptable”) and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement.
-
That means the personal tax information of millions of Americans would enter the system whether they want it to or not. “There’s a mandate to buy insurance,” says one Republican House aide. “You have to buy it. You have millions of people who can’t buy it without a subsidy, so they will have no choice but to accept the subsidy in order to buy insurance, and then the Health Choices Commissioner will have access to their tax records.”
-
- North Korea says in last stage of enriching uranium | World | Reuters
-
SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea said on Friday that it was in the final stage of enriching uranium, a process that would give it a second path to making a nuclear weapon.
After a series of conciliatory gestures by the North over the past month, the announcement raises the stakes in efforts by the international community to convince the reclusive state to give up its nuclear weapons programme.
-
“We are prepared for both dialogue and sanctions. If some permanent members of the UNSC wish to put sanctions first before dialogue, we would respond with bolstering our nuclear deterrence first before we meet them in a dialogue.”
-
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
“Why? So they can get more power. There doesn’t have to be a reason for their activity, only an apparent reason.”
My take: it’s the cultural expression of the social dominance / heirarchy instinct complex that lies deep down in the ineradicable monkey DNA. Dominant chimp males beat up and rob underlings. Human males accomplish the same thing by getting elected.
“”"”" My take: it’s the cultural expression of the social dominance / heirarchy instinct complex that lies deep down in the ineradicable monkey DNA. Dominant chimp males beat up and rob underlings. Human males accomplish the same thing by getting elected. “”"”"”
I have a saying — which I may have picked up by osmosis elsewhere: “There are more people who want power than therre are people who deserve power.”
“…believe 9/11 was a conspiracy…”
Just to be crystal clear–I believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. I just don’t believe any American patriots were part of the conspiracy.
Some observations:
We’re not only beset by power-hungry politicians, but also by NGO’s and other entities who insinuate themselves more and more into the lives of ordinary citizens — unasked and unwanted intrusions.
Many of these initiatives will have the effect of angering and even enraging more and more people. The IRS powers in particular is a particularly stupid and clueless move on the part of legislators. There is no government agency that engenders the hostility of the largest number of Americans than the IRS. As my other saying goes, “You can piss off some of the people some of the time, but you can’t piss off most of the people most of the time.”
Certainly lends credance to an erstwhile observation that the total wisdom of the world is constant in every age, but the number of people continues to increase.
Larry, you make, maybe even unwittingly, a point that sets me to ponder…
Note how, for so many, if you say “9/11 was a conspiracy”, they immediately assume the conspirators were American authorities (essentially). It’s not that, the “other” is not capable of doing it, but more to the point, it’s that for the “other” to do so, that is not a conspiracy.
That is as much a conspiracy as the two bears breaking into your cabin’s pantry is a “conspiracy”. They’re not conspirators… that’s just what bears do. Simple as that. And for us to morally judge those bears as wrong or evil is, well, absurd. They’re just being bears. Oh, well, waddya gonna do…
This same framework is applied to overseas terror masters, and even your local mugger. These people are not evil, they are just being (bears). Such events as the towers falling are just happenstance, like a hurricane. (Didn’t an administration official recently slip and refer to 9/11 as “airplane accidents” or the like?)
But the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld…. of course they can be branded as evil. They are not bears, they are evil.
It is notable that the left says that the idea of “evil” and of “having enemies” is troglodytic, caveman behavior that they have “progressed” above. But they are just as capable of branding enemies as anyone ever has been.
Their enemies simply must always, always, always be their fellow countrymen, and none other.
Always.
The bears are a conspiracy if they are working together.
Your argument makes no sense.
Why not just say “steal from people is just what crooks do.”?
If you don’t think animals don’t conspire, I would invite you to watch Bluejays deal with a Hawk.
Or park bears deal with tourists. (Park deer for that matter.)
The 9/11 attacks on the US were a conspiracy by any reasonable assessment.
Long time ago, on Zombie’s site, he posted pics of a war protest out in LA or San Fran. Many protesters, of course, were carrying 911 Truth signs and banners. What struck me was there was a few counter-protesters there, one of whom was holding a handmade sign:
“9/11 Was An Outside Job.”
Simple, but savagely brilliant.
Somewhat on topic, I heard that Curt Schilling, Boston Red Sox legend (and longtime independent/Republican) is thinking about running for Teddy’s vacant Senate seat. My guess is that the Dems will be scrambling to prevent anyone from actually RUNNING for the seat, especially if an actual Boston hero like Schilling were running. And I would love to see BoSox fans trying to keep their heads from exploding: [Schilling = teh awesome] + [Democratic Party = teh awesome].
The Palin solution – shoot the bears and let the guys on TV pontificate about the moral implications.
Larry, it’s not my argument. I agree with you… the left does not. Hence my point.
It was obviously a conspiracy, but to their minds, it could not be, because the conspirators were non-white, non-Western, non-Christian, non-conservative. The left has always simultaneously claimed to champion such people, while profoundly patronizing them as lacking any free-will, and basically derserving of nothing that their leftist champions are not prepared to magnimoniously deign to give them. Kinda like the bears in the National Park.
(I’m reminded of a wonderful quote: To the left, “the poor have not only an obligation to remain poor, they must be picturesque as well”… i.e. happy peasant maidens dancing their traditional dances for us and the like…)
That is why, to them, the word “conspiracy” simply can never be applied… only to the white Westerners who are the only creatures on earth capable of being “evil”.
It’s akin to that ludicrously insulting professorial definition of racism as involving the “power relationship” in its definition. In other words, the “powerless” (i.e. non-white) can never be racist, by our (made up out of thin air) new definition of the word. This new definition is, of course, profoundly insulting to anyone with an I.Q. above twelve, but just ask a typical professor to define racism, and you will likely get such nonsense and drivel.
Same deal. You and I are in agreement.
“Same deal. You and I are in agreement.”
I did indeed fail to see that.
Thanks for the gentle application of the clue by four.
And for Roy Lofquist: I don’t understand the Palin snark.
I know of no incident where she didn’t have the moral implications of her actions worked out well in advance of the action.
Have I missed something again? (Twice in one thread is not a record-contender, I am sorry to report.)
In the current case, I’m not entirely convinced that it’s Obama / Michelle only who want to accumulate more power for the office of the Presidency. It seems to me that we would be overlooking a possible cliff to hurtle over if we didn’t raise our eyes from our Constitutional perogatives and scan the horizon for possible Injuns out there looking to bushwhack our happy little settlement.
If Obama’s White House office was purchased for him by overseas money, the question then becomes, “why?” Well, obviously some person or country wanted to take over the reins of running America. And if that person or country had the money to buy a Presidency, then obviously making more money out of the deal is not an ultimate goal.
So the “why” must devolve around altering or killing America, and to do that, power as a leverage must be involved.
I don’t think Obama really gives a tinker’s damn about health care or polar bears or cap & trade. Nor do I think the people who are funding him care about any of those things either. I *do* think the people who are funding him care about freedom of speech and the right to bear arms and capitalism, but imagine how much stern stark POWER would be involved to make any of those things go away in the United States of America.
THAT is the ultimate goal — to neutralize the things that make America great and different — and in order to do that, the Presidency requires POWER. In order to amass that sort of POWER, he (they) has to start tilting the game table so more and more power flows into his office where it can be dissected and divvied up and re-issued, so that you and I end up living in a meek, unarmed, socialist hive thinking what we’re told to think and doing what we must to survive.
Americans are proving to be more cantankerous that previously thought, and Obama is proving to be even more inept that previously thought, so it’s not working very well so far. But don’t kid yourself — the game currently is all about POWER, if ever in the history of mankind it was about anything else.
Larry – None taken, my good man..
NahnCee – Scary stuff. In the “God looks after drunks, small children, and the United States of America” file…..
I looked (desperately) for the salutory good that could come from an Obama administration back when he was elected, and I wonder how much of it is coming to pass.
1) We have now elected a black man president. No, racism has not gone away, and the willingness to play the racism card, which was predicted by many, seems to be more prevalent than I would have thought, as I felt it would be so utterly shameless as to cause embarrassment to those playing it. But y’know what? The racism card is played… and we just categorically don’t listen any more. We don’t care, nor should we. Those days are done, everyone not invested in racism knows it, so play that ragged, tattered, 70′s era card to your hearts content… WE DON’T CARE ANY MORE! That’s the price of the big chair, professor. Tough titty. Live with it. Forever, ’cause it ain’t coming back.
2) These overseas apologies for the US are lame. But y’know what…. they’re done! We’ve now grovelled over our wrongdoings… yeah whatever. But they’re done. So, overseas ideologists, you gonna keep asking us to? Go right on asking. Because that too is now DONE. Crossed off the list. You wanted to hear it, you heard it, from the President of the United States himself. Hope it helped. Done. Over. Moving right along….
3) Is it truly God’s plan? To elect a socialist… but an incompetent one? (The latter IS worth thanking God for!) I have wondered if Mr. Obama may be the one to seriously discredit socialist thinking, not only in America, but beyond as well. This is MUCH to hope for, and we are a long LONG ways away from that point, but I did wonder from the start, and that has not changed a bit based on what I have been seeing.
These are all still hopes, but there is promise, and I cling to it.
And it requires work on our side, work as relentless as the work the de-constructors have been doing for four decades.
But there is promise.
Andrew X:
1) We may not ‘listen’ to the racism card being played, but the media does, and hammers it home. The left and the media (BIRM) will never get enough of race/sex/homophobe/etc cards.
2) Those that yearned for and loved the overseas apologies fall in category 1, and will also never get enough of seeing the USA debased.
3) Oy, be careful about the “God’s plan” stuff…we’re not calling him the obammessiah for nothing. So He sent His only Son, Son gets crucified…
Nahncee, you are right it’s about power, and part of power is co-opting powerful groups. Obama seems to be in this phase of the power grab. He’s already effectively co-opted the financial sector, the auto manufacturers, and he’s on his way with healthcare (“Big Pharma” caved in as fast as they could).
Big Media is already in his corner. As are industrial giants like GE, a company that knows perfectly well how crony capitalism combined with “cap and trade” will fill its coffers (GE’s vile CEO, in a just world, would be tried, convicted and shot for treason).
The Obama team are Fascists through and through, and they are systematically working toward their goals. They really don’t give a rag about the Tea Parties and the Town Halls. That’s kid stuff. Once they get the pieces in place, it will be easy to crush these things.
More is coming. The move on talk radio and the Internet will perhaps be Obama’s Rubicon moment, when there will be no going back, and when the truth will become startlingly clear to even the most dim witted.
It took Hitler years to consolidate power. But then, Obama isn’t even through the first year of his interegnum. Much remains to be done.
Speaking of Fascists, an interesting side note I learned only recently. One of the big factors in Hitler’s re-invigoration of the German economy was that he completely destroyed the trade union movement. Partly as a result of the new freedom of movement for labor, Germany’s ruinous unemployment was halved in two years. This is one part of the playbook I don’t expect Obama to follow.
Andrew X: Here we have the classical debate on “who is in the better position, the optimist, or the pessimist”.
The good news is, after trying to traverse the Living Room in the dark last night, I know now the new location of the coffee table.
Some of your points are well-taken, if we in fact owed apologies–or if made, owed or not, did some long term good.
But some think (I among them) that the best part of being the best there is is not having to say “I’m sorry”.
But facing the optimism-pessimism issue squarely, two thoughts come to mind.
On is that a nascent romance with a delightful young lady many years ago probably died a premature death when, after I had said something gloomy (I don’t have any recall of what), she said something along the lines of “Th’s dreadful! You should be more positive!”, to which I replied some thing like “I AM positive! I am positive that [some indication that the world was en-route in a handbasket]. The good news is that I later met what became my wife of 42 (so far) years.
But more to the point, I do strongly believe that the Pessimist is is the better position. What ever happens, the very worst it can be is “what was expected”, while any error results in something “better than” expected.
I’ll leave the reverse analysis to the reader–I’m sure you can work it out, and I can’t figure out how to write “optimist” with a capital and not run afoul of a copyright.
And I will wrap with an announcement that I do seriously hope that I am wrong about the prognosis for our country.
[I re-read the post number 13 (numerologists please note) to see if I had missed something and noted again the bizarre concept of a "competent socialist" -- socialism is founded on the notion that there are no competent humans -- and they like me have never been able to explain the embedded conundrum: Are socialists by their own definition incompetent (my position) or are they inhuman (a position I am willing to consider).]
And as a final final: I am a committed Pessimist. I am also a Human. Humans are frequently in error.
Upon those truths I hang my hopes.
I’m glad someone is finally paying a political price for 9/11 conspiracy theory.
BUCKETS, NO 8: As much as I like Curt Schilling, and admired him as a player, truth is, he is no “Boston Red Sox legend.” Schilling played for the Sox only 3 or 4 years, at the end of his career. He had one good season – the rest were disappointing. At the end, Red Sox nation quaked with fear when Schilling took the mound: he was that inconsistent.
He doesn’t stand a chance.
2. Roderick Reilly
I have a saying — which I may have picked up by osmosis elsewhere: “There are more people who want power than therre are people who deserve power.” is a tautology which is related to the paradox that:
“Those who want power do not deserve it; those who deserve power do not want it.” And that includes a lot of people who only masque their desire for power.
the luckiest guy in the CT legislative picture is the guy watching baseball highlights on ESPN, but not pictured, sitting behind the two solitaire players
Andrew #10: “It was obviously a conspiracy, but to their minds, it could not be, because the conspirators were non-white, non-Western, non-Christian, non-conservative.”
Indeed. But the other reason they cite it as an inside job is that the poor unfortunates they champion are obviously totally incapable of doing anything like that, or for that matter even feeding and clothing themselves.
Note that the Arabs use the same reasoning “It musta been the Jews because we are not capable of doing anything that complex successfully.”
Anyway, if the left REALLY thought that 9/11/01 was an inside job they should be clammoring for the people responsible be identified – and put in charge of Nationalized Health Care – since they are not only very capable managers but also are capable of covering up huge lies – and that is what Obamacare needs right now!
I think what we are seeing now, not just in the US but in much of the world, is the emergence of a political class that depends upon the transfer of wealth from different groups to others as the means and rationale for their existence. They exist to mediate conflicts between groups, be they ethnic, economic, regional, or whatever. They take from one, give to the other, and extract a hefty middle mans fee for doing so.
The reality is that they thrive on domestic discord. Without it their power would collapse. I use to think that PC, “diversity,” and multi-culturalism were actual goals. And maybe they are for the useful idiots, but really they are just tools for a predatory political class.
Unlike a natural ecosystem, the predators (or maybe scavengers might be a better analogy) must outnumber the prey, otherwise the prey may turn on them and it is the former predator who ends up being lunch for the ex-sheep.
If a society truly is homogeneous politicians can’t play this game. You can’t separate the sheep from the vultures. That’s one reason politicians tend to hate suburban communities that are independent political entities–the game can’t be played there. There aren’t different groups that be played against one another. Its a food free zone for members of the political class.
Whether its true or not I don’t know, but it does seem to explain a lot of things, especially about the lax immigration policies of America and the EU countries. And the smaller and more numerous the groups are, the easier it is to use them.
Diversity. How sweet and noble. The old name for it was “divide and conquer.”
It used to be, in America, that we were focused on that which we all had in common. I remember something I read about Army recruitment offices in New Mexico during WWI. It was not uncommon for elderly Navaho Indians showing up with their ancient black powder rifles, saying that they heard we were at war and that they were there to volunteer for the army.
Ah yes–it used to be that we focused on what united us, now we focus on what divides us. And who are the scum that profit from this? And what should we do with them?
RE: #22 Tcobb said,
I think what we are seeing now, not just in the US but in much of the world, is the emergence of a political class that depends upon the transfer of wealth from different groups to others as the means and rationale for their existence. They exist to mediate conflicts between groups (actually they create the conflicts then pretend to mediate), be they ethnic, economic, regional, or whatever. They take from one, give to the other, and extract a hefty middle mans fee for doing so.
You have just given a good definition of the word “parasite.”
Jefe
RE:
1) We may not ‘listen’ to the racism card being played, but the media does, and hammers it home. The left and the media (BIRM) will never get enough of race/sex/homophobe/etc cards.
2) Those that yearned for and loved the overseas apologies fall in category…
–
But here is my point… in order for the media to “hammer it home”, and same with the overseas contingent… there HAS to be an element on our side that is genuinely hurt by the accusation, and inclined to act on that hurt. We would agree that Obama largely got elected on that very guilt trip thing, i.e. “I’m NOT racist, and we just want to be loved!”, etc etc
What I’m saying is that the people who see through this nonsense are growing in numbers on a daily basis. The vast majority in the country that elected Obama is not about to listen to shrill accusations on racism and our national character from Euro-lefties who have never elected such a person, nor overseas or UN third-worlders who are going to talk like we are a “white society”. (Nor our own drooling lefties any more.) It’s too obviously and patently false that as an argument it is now embarrassing.
This is not a direct affectation, but a more subtle and hard to read one, but it is very true and foundationally powerful.
Bottom line: the media can hammer all they like. Again…. we are simply not going to listen, in larger and larger numbers. As a sentiment, or a political framework, it’s no longer true, it’s no longer hip, it’s no longer cool, it’s just nonsense. That is where we are heading, we are well on the way, and I think that is inescapable, and a very very good thing.
A good book to read about optimism/pessimism is Learned Optimism by Seligman. I have the 1992 version, which my FIL says is better than the newer one. It has been handy to know, from taking the little tests in the book, that I am a short-term optimist and a long-term pessimist. My husband is the opposite and we balance each other well. Unfortunately, my organic predisposition quails a bit when confronted with NahnCee’s points about the power struggle.
22/TCobb. Wow. Beautifully said. I guess the key will be to stay united and not let them divide us. It would be lovely if we could educate the outliers and thereby persuade them into our fold. I’m off to Friday’s library knitting group to foment unity.
“To elect a socialist… but an incompetent one?
As was posted earlier, A competent Socialist is an oxymoron. They are by definition incompetent. They start with a false premise and go down hill from there.
What I would like to know is, just what occurs in the human brain to cause this glitch? Where is the bug in the code? I know that Dr. Savage says that Liberalism is a mental disorder. But he never goes on to expound on the causality.
One of my favorite political cartoons has a panel on this very subject today. Day by Day
AndrewX: “To elect a socialist… but an incompetent one?”
In the words of Col.Jessup: “Is there another kind?”
Nancee: I think the only reason Americans have not already taken up arms against the government is because deep down inside we believe we can put things straight through political means. (re: Americans proving more cantankerous) But there is a tipping point (I believe an attempt to change the second amendment) and when reached is not easily righted again. I prefer peaceful, political debate but am ready for lead-based diplomacy.
I serve as a commissioner in a small NC community. Most meetings are filled with debate about this problem or that. The result is usually a motion to address the issue with an up or down vote by the Board.
It has occurred to me in the time spent in such affairs that many of the resolutions are never carried out or implemented. The fault may be due to lack of support by an employee or difficulty in enforcing the edict. In fact, things always seem to go on as usual until such time as another issue is debated and, in our minds, resolved.
I’m more inclined to believe that we have enough legislation at the federal and state levels to last into the ext age. Legislation enacted to dismantle a corrupt, unmanageable and unenforceable set of rules and regulations will take at least that long.
I don’t think Lenin was an incompetent socialist. Do you?
Hitler was a very competent socialist. He was a bad military strategist (with some exceptions), but as a political strategist he was top knotch, especially when it came to reading and capitalizing on the weaknesses of his adversaries.
Of course socialists can be competent. So can serial killers. There is no moral dimension to it, nor does it matter whether socialism is defensible. A competent socialist is one who understands setting goals, plotting, strategizing, engaging tactics, reading his adversary, playing to his own strengths and his adversaries weaknesses, knowing his limitations, getting his adversary to do what he wants him to do, and knowing when to strike for the heart. Whether the ends are moral, logical, or even achievable is irrelevant.
Of course there can be competent socialists.
I just don’t think Obama is one of them.
Lenin failed to attain the socialist utopia. Hitler failed to attain it as well. But then again Hitler nor Lenin were socialists. That was the nom de plume chosen to attain their true goal which was the totalitarian state under their direct rule. They wished to be KING.
Socialism is the pretty lipstick on the pig called Tyranny.
22/TCobb. I read your comment aloud to my 16-year-old after school today and it sparked an excellent conversation. Thank you.
“I think what we are seeing now, not just in the US but in much of the world, is the emergence of a political class that depends upon the transfer of wealth from different groups to others as the means and rationale for their existence.” – TCobb
The word to describe these actions is cannibalism. At root, they are cannibals. They expect to live an be supported by the sweat and ultimately the blood of their victims. You are EXPECTED to sacrifice for them. And when things get bad enough, you will be expected to sacrifice your life.
Self -sacrifice, self immolation, the destruction of the identity of the self in the name of the State. The one word to describe this is altruism. Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, with no personal gain to be realized.
You can see this in the so-called “healthcare debate”. There is a moral issue here, and it is not that we owe anyone healthcare as a positive right. Because that, among other positive rights leads to the claim of others on your life. Your life, you abilities, your productivity.
The fundamental moral right here is the right of one man (or woman) to their own life, dignity and liberty. If we declaim these rights, and refuse to defend them from the cannibals, then we are surely on the road to serfdom.
AndrewX: I respectfully disagree; Socialism is a failed ideal because of the “zero liability voter” concept (full attribution to Andrew Wilkow). Those who bring nothing to the table believing they are in a position to negotiate for things produced by others. I believe in charity, as statistics show most conservatives do in a much higher percentage than liberals, but it is charity and not something I owe anyone else.
Hitler was a charismatic speaker and was able to effectively communicate his vision- but it was a unsustainable vision on the whole. Just as a blind squirrel finds the odd nut, not all of his ideas were bad but I think most people would agree that the Germany he wanted as an end result was a nightmare vision.
Socialism vs. Charity is a failure of an ideology because it rewards inability and penalizes accomplishment. Therefore a socialist is doomed to fail because the ideology is doomed to fail as well.