There is no omniscient class. There is no drooling class.
Sorry for creating terms for specific use. I only meant that there is a specific group of educated people in power who do all they can to engineer society according to their own beliefs regardless of who must be oppressed to accomplish their particular goals. The "omniscient class" are those who understand that socialism is really any stage of transformation between capitalism and communism and do anything necessary to move towards communism.
When the first group of people organized a system to make decisions for the group, ie they created a government, they got involved in the redistribution of wealth. Whenever a group decides to pool resources together for the benefit of the group and not of particular individuals, they are redistributing the wealth. It's not a leftist idea. It's a survival strategy.
I agree with human organization being natural. Where we most likely part ways is at what point such agreements become needlessly oppressive and at what ratio of rulers to subjects becomes evil and too detrimental to the individual. I am sure that you will agree that even the family unit represents a sort of micro-government. And at that level the ceding of certain rights and freedoms for the good of all involved is very natural and "just". As family size government moves to the community level a significantly larger loss of freedoms is necessary in proportion to the growth in the number of individuals increases. It is common sense. At what size do these organizations become too burdensome to the individual? Therein lies the crux of the problem. It is entirely subjective when this point is reached. This is where we definitely part ways. The "leftists" simply allow the individual freedoms to be ceded at the whim of a very small proportion of the whole for the "good" of the collective as they see fit. They show no qualm in designing systems that subject many millions of people to oppressive policy for the sake a miniscule percentage of the whole is their quest for the greater good of "all". In the end, it comes down to exerting government force upon others to comply with policy that is indeed against their own interest that separates me from "leftists" and defines best the belief held by my created "omniscient elite".
Somewhere along the way, someone noticed that freedom is a funny thing. When you have the resources to exercise freedom, then freedom is taken for granted. When you don't have resources, it becomes clear that poverty is a much greater enemy of freedom than any government. So some left-wingers devised some strategies to alleviate poverty in a society. Communism certainly didn't work the way Marx hoped it would, it didn't even evolve the way he thought it would. Socialism has become more pervasive, however, and EVERY government in the world is to some degree socialist in the sense that they perform services for the public at large.
That seems to align with many people's beliefs and I am sure that is how some see man's situation at this point in history. I only find "fault" with some of the assumed premises posited as fact rather than opinion. (*Note* Everything that I have written here is simply my opinion and nothing more.) I have yet to see any indication that all of the socialist policies in the world have done anything to alleviate poverty. Where is our "Great Society"? It does not now, nor will it ever exist, because of simple human nature. Governments today are all socialist, no argument there, but I attribute that not to any type of "benevolence" on their part but rather to the nature of government itself. That is to rule in a manner that pleases those that are in power and not those of its subjects. The offering of services rather than protecting freedoms is the primary job and tool of godvernments such as ours.
The only progression possible is this:
Tax the people into a state where they have a need that they can no longer afford.
Offer a "solution" to the need and increase taxes to pay for the solution.
The subjects are now taxed to the point where they have a new need.
Repeat cycle until people have nothing of their own and depend entirely upon Godvernment for all things.
Socialism as an ideal has nothing whatsoever to do with totalitarianism. It is an economic philosophy based on the political philosophy that underlies democracy. It espouses the ability of people to work together to achieve economic goals. It is a response to the fact that in a completely free capitalist market that money and resources will be increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. Rockefellers, Carnegies, Rothschilds. Money is a weight in the system and tends to pool. That tendency makes competition increasingly difficult and eventually impossible in an unfettered system. We know this, and that's why we break up monopolies.
Surely you jest. Socialism, in intent and design, inextricably leads to totalitarianism. You may play with semantics here, but communism, the end result of incremental socialism, is fundamentally totalitarianism. It is a natural progression that cannot be stopped without overthrow of the government implementing such policy. Marx was a genius, evil, but truly genius.
Obviously, we part also on the distinction between the evil of the Rothschilds and that of a Godvernment. Whether too much control is exerted over the individual by the Chosen Family or a handful of government officials is of no consequence. It is still the abolition of freedoms for the many for the interests of the few. And if you wish to include the more common existence of big business they are a completely different animal. Business thrives, or gets too big, because of people actively and freely choosing to give them power. Government thrives, or gets too big, because is actively forces people to geve them power.
Lastly, money concentration is simply natural. There are those who will use the system to succeed and those who will not. No matter how you design the game, there are always going to be those who figure out how to accumulate power for themselves. Whether they are government officials or business owners. Again, human nature, no revelation to be found.
There is no liberal elite. There have no masked intentions and do not promote human slavery. And all the arguments to that affect are simply poor imitations of the Red Scare of the 1950's.
Saying that there is no liberal elite defies the existence of all of the "enlightened" among us who constantly devise ways to force people to participate in schemes that are against their own best interests. If you seriously believe that the likes of FDR, Johnson, Pelosi, and their ilk are not true believers at the altar of Marx, I have no idea as to what you think these people stand for. All I can say that it is definitely not freedom in any twisted form that a sane person could conceive.
As to the "red scare". Well I think that it was and is without a doubt that the policies of our "enemies" are now our own. This country is simply the Big Red Machine with good public relations and propoganda. By the time we feel the gears crushing our bodies we will be too weak to fight.
Incidentally, every Amerikan was a slave before the revolutionary war was completed. The only way to avoid bankruptcy was to guarantee the labor of "citizens" to pay for the debt. The contract with the Rothschilds in 1913 was simply further insurance that we could never escape the plantation.
I am not trying to be confrontational, as I appreciate your input. I am always interested in what drives the beliefs of the other side. It is always enlightening and entertaining to some degree. All of my beliefs can be traced to a very few basic beliefs that no matter of debate could ever change and more than the configuration of a particular molecule. And I do not possess the arrogance to assume that I would ever change your core beliefs either. Just to be clear on a few of the immutable beliefs at the core of my being.
I do not believe that it is right to take anything from one person to give to another through government force, regardless of the intent. "Benevolence ceases to be so when it is accomplished through threats of harm."
I do not believe that anyone should have to relinquish any freedom that exercise thereof does not specifically and automatically infringe upon same of another.
I believe the only "greater good" of society is the protection of individual freedom from the society itself.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
