Article

2009-03-16 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2009-03-16 07:14|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 A duck might sound like a duck, but it is actually a Thomson's Gazelle. WAPO logic, amazing.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-03-16 07:47|| 2009-03-16 07:47|| Front Page Top

#2 Socialists such as this writer assume there is such a thing as a coherent system called socialism. There isn't. There are only greater and lesser degrees of parasitism on capitalism. Socialism is only a system in the sense that it's systematic looting.

Posted by Cynicism Inc 2009-03-16 08:15|| 2009-03-16 08:15|| Front Page Top

#3 I would agree he is a true socialist since a true socialist would make everyone equally poor. In Obama's case he is making 49% pay for the other 51%. There will be a short peiod of time in the future when all is equal but it will be very shorted lived since it is the bottom of the cycle when everyone has nothing (the point where the 49% have nothing to give and what was given is worthless).

Posted by airandee 2009-03-16 09:00|| 2009-03-16 09:00|| Front Page Top

#4 If a bloated and out-of-control OSHA can tell you how run any aspect of your business pertaining to employees work conditions, is that not de facto control of the means of production?

If there is a giant regulatory burden by OSHA and another by thuggish labor unions which are overtly redistributionist, both of which businesses must satisfy or be shut down, do the businesses or the government/union axis control the business?

If a regulatory environment exists where a business owner must essentially run things exactly as the regulatory burden dictates, who actually controls the business?

If it costs a great deal of money to comply with these regulations, are they not a de facto tax, and if added to income tax this burden is over 50% of total revenue of the business, is the government not the true owner?

If an endangered species is seen once on your property, and the government can tell you what to do with your property from that point forward, is this not de facto confiscation of private property?

If the government mandates health insurance for everyone, and have regulations backed up with the pain of jail sentence for noncompliance, do they not control that industry?

Control of the "means of production" and private property does not have to be abrupt and overt. It can be the death of a thousand cuts.

The author of this piece knows these things full well. To write an article like this is the height of dishonesty.

Posted by no mo uro 2009-03-16 09:05|| 2009-03-16 09:05|| Front Page Top

#5 Most of people is not aware of "New Socialists":
They now think that nationalizing and ruling firms is too risky, brings too much troubles with workers an important part of electoral base and worse than that they need to bring on results. That is against the new creeds of a sofa ideology. So they go upstairs to "regulating" and "taxing", if things don't go well the fault is always blamed to others that suppposedly are in field. It is easy to put blame in group X or Y depending on circunstances, launching people against each other. When someone fires from supposedly outside they can rule confortably even extorquing much money for their pet projects and collecting a clientele.

Posted by Large Snerong7311 2009-03-16 09:36|| 2009-03-16 09:36|| Front Page Top

#6 "I did not have sex with that woman"

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-03-16 10:02|| 2009-03-16 10:02|| Front Page Top

#7 Socialism works until you run out of other people's money...Margaret Thacher

Posted by James Carville 2009-03-16 10:46|| 2009-03-16 10:46|| Front Page Top

#8 Where is the dividing line between socialism and fascism when it comes to the control of "private" business. The One seems more of a fascist to me where business becomes completely regulated / corporatist.

Posted by AlanC 2009-03-16 14:51|| 2009-03-16 14:51|| Front Page Top

#9 The funniest thing is that malregulation caused the credit boom.

Posted by Bright Pebbles the flatulent 2009-03-16 15:40|| 2009-03-16 15:40|| Front Page Top

#10 The funniest thing is that malregulation caused the credit boom.

That's the liberal governance model in a nutshell. Fight for "reasonable" regulations on the free market. When the market chokes on your new regs, declare that the free market has failed and take over completely.

Here's my favorite part -- what I call malpractice insurance. Years later when people recognize what a cocked up, corrupt and thoroughly failed job you've done running the industries which you "saved" from the free market, just tell them how much worse it would have been if you had done nothing!

Posted by Iblis 2009-03-16 17:52|| 2009-03-16 17:52|| Front Page Top

23:36 trailing wife
23:35 buwaya
23:29 CrazyFool
22:56 newc
22:51 M. Murcek
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:39 Muggsy Glink
22:27 newc
22:21 JosephMendiola
22:15 Frank G
22:14 Frank G
22:13 Frank G
22:09 Broadhead6
22:08 Shavins Big Foot8769
22:06 Broadhead6
22:04 Shavins Big Foot8769
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:57 tipover
21:53 Atomic Conspiracy
21:44 Classer
21:44 Procopius2k
21:40 SteveS
21:35 JosephMendiola
21:29 JosephMendiola