Tagged: Liberal

Doctor Shortage? No Problem! Redefine “Doctor”!

doctors-ap

California is experiencing a doctor shortage. So the obvious thing to do is to redefine what “doctor” means, carry on with all the policies that resulted in said shortage, and hope that everyone is too stupid to notice. Right?? Maybe it will just… go away? Who knows what they think. Like how they changed what “unemployed” means when they saw the economy wasn’t recovering, that unemployment is actually HIGHER than it ever was during the great depression. …but it can’t be our policies!! It must be the way we’re defining unemployment! Of course.

It’s the equivalent of sticking your index fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and going “LALALALALALALAIDONTCAREWHATYOUSAYLALALALALALAICANDOWHATIWANTLALALALALA” …it’s what Democrats do. It’s what liberals do. Wait, sorry, it’s what politicians do, and the people who support them. The difference between the left and right is that people dont take Christians serious enough to let them dictate policy, for the most part; we’ve separated church and state — but people still have yet to figure out that progressivism is just as asinine, destructive, and faith-based.

The efficient brilliance of statism, right before our eyes… what do you even say about this nonsense? To people with their eyes open, it looks a lot like witch-burning or virgin sacrifice.

It’s like this: Oh, the rain dance didn’t make it rain? Looks like we need to redefine what “rain” means then!! It can’t possibly be our policy of dancing to make it rain that’s wrong!

I got a better idea. Why don’t we take notice of the string of horrible results that happen whenever the government is in control of something, and then stop voting for people who believe government is the answer to every question.

Heinlein vs Aristotle vs Plato

Stumbled upon this colossal quote today, and had to share it with you:

“Does history record any case in which the majority was right?” ―Robert A. Heinlein

Think about that for a minute.  On issues of morality the answer to that has to be a resounding “no.”  Clan-think seems to bring out the worst in people, is and always has been wrong, and will probably continue to be wrong so long as the inhuman practice of statism, which allows some men to rule over others by initiatory force, keeps mankind in the dark ages. History shows that it is always a tireless and passionate minority which moves history along the right path, when it finally gets there. I also came across this quote from Plato which is  both fitting and quite erudite in its own right:

Image

That’s one of only two things that Plato ever said that I agree with, that I’m aware of. The other one: “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

  Plato was a mystic, and it could be said that he is responsible for much of the murky, mystical-irrational philosophy that exists today. The philosophical yin to Plato’s yang is Aristotle, the father of science and reason, who was Plato’s student strangely enough.

The more robust of the 3 quotes here would have to be Heinlein’s, and the more scholarly, Plato’s about the price of apathy towards public affairs.

Hong Kong, Baby!

Yes. Hong Kong baby. This small island was nothing more than a fishing village not that long ago. When the Island of Hong Kong was given back to China from the British, China took a “hands off”(translation: laissez-faire) approach — what happened is pictured below. With near laissez-faire Capitalism, there is no government safety net, or very little, and regulation is almost non-existent. Yet people flocked to this little fishing village in droves. But, for what? Certainly not to live under socialist or statist policies — there were none. They went there because it was economically free. And the results are difficult to ignore, even if predictable.

Image

Taking a look around the world, you see that countries and economies are successful to the degree that they have freedom(Capitalism), and are free from government coercion, regulation, taxation, etc. All first world countries today are a mixed economy, and consequently, they produce mixed results.

It is consistently clear that Capitalism delivers the goods, even to the passive observer. No reasonable person would or could argue that it doesn’t. So why is it that the major general trend is to continuously move towards more and more statism??

People reject Capitalism(with their votes, contrary to their best interests) based on the ethics and morality that Capitalism necessarily requires.

Free markets are all about self-interest. People view self-interest as unseemly, or worse. When you trade, you only do so if it benefits you — both people believe they will benefit from each exchange in a free market, or they would not do it. That, as ridiculous as it sounds, is the reason people reject Capitalism. People are convinced of an altruist and collectivist morality, which glorifies self-sacrifice and requires that individuals sacrifice themselves to the “greater good,” and preaches that they are not entitled to live for themselves, that they must sacrifice and live for others to be considered moral.

The archaic “morality” of altruism and the communist/socialist/leftist ethics of collectivism is what people reject Capitalism based on.

But I just have just one question for altruists and collectivists. One teeny tiny question. …Why?? Why shouldn’t people live to pursue their own values? Why should they live for other people and not themselves? There is no rational answer to that question. 

The ethics of self-interest are the only way to rescue Capitalism from the left. A culture which upholds sacrifice/altruism and collectivism as its highest values can only end one way — totalitarianism, communism, national socialism, fascism(all essentially the same extreme left political system, slight variances). It is profoundly moral to live to pursue your own values, not someone else’s.

timothyavatorAccess Millionnaire trader Tim Sykes’ Free Video Lessons, Newsletters, Real-time trade updates, and More HERE.

A Really Inconvenient Truth

This is the unavoidable truth of leftist philosophy. Violence and coercion is the only means to implement it. It requires the support of those who don’t voluntarily offer their support, and force is the only means to achieve it.

There are only two essential political choices: voluntary interaction(Capitalism), and everything else, which, while slightly different in their implementation, require violence to enforce. These leftist variations of totalitarian statism include, but are not limited to, communism, socialism, and fascism.

While I’m on the subject, it is inaccurate of me to refer to Obama as a socialist. Socialism means state ownership of industry and business. Fascism is something more insidious and destructive, because it allows failed government policy to be passed off as a failure of private enterprise. Under fascism, private ownership may be retained, but all business and industry is controlled and centrally regulated by the state. Obama is, more accurately, a fascist. To be clear, I am not demagoguing or appealing to emotion — by his own policy advocacy, and the definition of fascism, Obama is a fascist. That is fact. Bush was a fascist. Each and every President for the last 100 years has been a fascist to some degree, although none as ideologically or purposefully as Obama.

Image

Hitler and Obama Up In a Tree

I think this is actually an Obama quote. Oh, no, it’s Hitler, never mind. Hard to tell the difference sometimes, them both being extreme leftists. This is called ‘collectivism’ and it is the method by which all tyrants in history have justified the enslavement and genocide of millions. The same collectivism that liberals are teaching in our schools and universities. The same collectivism that Obama is attempting to institutionalize right now. Hitler and Obama share a philosophy — is it really any wonder people don’t want to give him their guns?

Image

For everyone thinking “how dare you compare Obama with Hitler!”  I’m drawing parallels where they exist — these two men are both collectivists. I am certainly not equating the two morally(it would be very, very difficult for anyone to achieve as much evil as Hitler did), BUT I am definitely equating them in terms of their collectivist/altruist ideals. Actually I’m equating O with every tyrannical dictator ever, in terms of their political and moral ideals.

Fascism, by any other name…

corporatist obama

…is still Fascism.

They will try to dumb you down, they will try to steal and corrupt language for their own purposes, they will try to erode the level of discourse down to where they need it to be — don’t let them do it. Professional leftists and progressives, big-government types, the academe, the media, union leaders, whose livelihoods depend upon the huge machinery of the state, will confuse corporatism(or “cronyism”) with Capitalism, and they do it on purpose. They do it to destroy the impeccable record of the free market for creating vast amounts of wealth, for raising the standard of living of all those in economically and politically free nations(to the degree that Capitalism exists anywhere), for civilizing the planet, even greatly benefiting those not living under it.

Let’s be crystal clear in defining the terms we’re working with. Laissez-faire Capitalism(real Capitalism) necessarily requires the complete and total separation of state and economics — which makes corporatism impossible in the literal sense of the word. One of the preferred strategies of opponents of Capitalism is the straw-man technique described above, whereby they criticize cronyism/corporatism(which is, strictly speaking, Fascism), while framing it as Capitalism. The most ironic part being that they are advocating for more of the fascist/socialist policies that actually caused whatever ailment they are blaming Capitalism for.

Among other, totalitarian social aspects, for which fascism is known for, is perhaps the most important aspect of it: the economic posture of fascism makes it perhaps more insidious and destructive than socialism or communism, which requires state ownership of all industry and business, while fascism only requires state control. Private ownership is retained, but totalitarian centralized control is achieved through regulation by the state, which allows failures of policy to be blamed on private ownership and free markets, and which allows them to demand more government regulation and control. This process may be repeated until the inevitable collapse of the entire facade, as has been the result of all nations who progress to achieve complete statist/leftist tyranny.

A quote, from Benito Mussolini himself: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” He is describing two different types of power — corporate power(economic), and political power(guns, force, violence, coercion). The two could not be more different in nature. But that’s another discussion.