Article

2009-07-26 Home Front: Culture Wars

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 g(r)omgoru 2009-07-26 04:04|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 The problem with the analysis is that today's Greens are about as Marxist as Groucho, Harpo and Chico.

If you want to transform a society into a communist society it takes big brass ones, being able to not only forment violence against capitalists, but to take part in it as well.

I know it makes today's crazier conservatives feel good to point out that liberals such as Obama are Marxist and will turn the country into some sort of Marxist state, but the reality is that Obama, his Obamettes and the Obamanation have neither the political will, nor the intent to transform society into a communist or socialist society.

The talk the talk, but they just can't take the steps needed.

That said, what the Obamanation is doing is playing a very, very deadly dangerous game which can easily fly out of control with racial politics and with the flaunting of existing law, such as the armed robberies more formerly known as the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies.

The idea that Greens and liberals can transform anything more complicated that an iced latte is absurd.

Posted by badanov 2009-07-26 11:18|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-07-26 11:18|| Front Page Top

#2 The greens are collectivists, and statists -- they want to treat humanity as a subservient collective that does teh will of the "enlightened" (the "intellectuals" at the core of the movement) and demolish the things that can stop them: individualism and capitalism. They intend to develop and use a massive state as the mechanism to achieve thier rule.

That's close enough to communism for me.

Posted by OldSpook 2009-07-26 12:18|| 2009-07-26 12:18|| Front Page Top

#3 The idea that Greens and liberals can transform anything more complicated that an iced latte is absurd.

Bad, remember Lenin was "just a man" at one time too. I think you treat our enemies a bit too non-chalantly.

Posted by OldSpook 2009-07-26 12:21|| 2009-07-26 12:21|| Front Page Top

#4 That's close enough to communism for me.

Whether it's the far left or the far right, they always end up wanting to control our every thought and choice. The label doesn't matter. The intent to destroy human dignity and freedom does.

Posted by lotp 2009-07-26 12:52|| 2009-07-26 12:52|| Front Page Top

#5 They ~~intend to develop and use~~ have already used a massive state as the mechanism to achieve thier rule.

We've been on this track for a century now but for the most part it has happened so slowly that most folks don't understand just how far away from the Founding Father's ideas we really are today. And, sadly, a huge swath of the people wouldn't care if they did know having been indoctrinated into the cult of "why should I care what a bunch of dead white males think?"

At this stage of our history the process is likely irreversible. Even the great Ronald Reagan could do no more than temporarily slow the rate of growth of a federal government that has become oppressive via its sheer bulk and despite its good or bad intentions.

Posted by AzCat 2009-07-26 14:02|| 2009-07-26 14:02|| Front Page Top

#6 The problem with the analysis is that today's Greens are about as Marxist as Groucho, Harpo and Chico.

If you want to transform a society into a communist society it takes big brass ones, being able to not only forment violence against capitalists, but to take part in it as well.

They don't have to. They can set up their tax farming scheme where Goldman Sachs and George Soros can sell the right to engage in industrial activity and us peons can buy it, but then later on we'll be stuck defending the 'capitalist' system they implement now, OR of course, as an alternative, we could nationalize Goldman Sachs and whatever Soros does.

Their system isn't designed to implement communism, it's to make us choose between their chickenshit crony capitalism and whatever crony capitalism or communism we will eventually adopt of our own.

Take health care, for example.

FDR was one of the main drivers of health-insurance-as-a-benefit; LBJ was a main driver for medicaire and medicaid. What did this result in? A broken system. What are the alternatives we're presented with? "The Dirty Republican" system, which is basically described as this awful mess (done by those filthy idiot capitalist rethuglicans FDR and LBJ) OR we can go with the glorious socialist system proposed by that wonderful Democrat President Zero.

Isn't it funny how we're all to blame for the mess the previous Democrat presidents invented but the only answer is giving a Democrat president more power?

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-07-26 14:16|| 2009-07-26 14:16|| Front Page Top

#7 The ratchet doesn't need to turn all the way every year or every administration, as long as it only tightens in one direction and goes 'clickclickclick' when you try to go the other way.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-07-26 14:18|| 2009-07-26 14:18|| Front Page Top

#8 And when the ratchet has turned sufficiently far enough the lure of near-absolute power, or at least the perceived impossibility of rolling it back, will lead politicians of all stripes to simply wield said power rather than railing against it. The problem isn't (and for a very long time hasn't been) the particular political bent of those working the levers of power in our federal government but the fact that those levers have become all-encompassing and there's no path back from whence we came.

Posted by AzCat 2009-07-26 15:14|| 2009-07-26 15:14|| Front Page Top

#9 Unless, of course, those levers get broken.

Posted by lotp 2009-07-26 16:47|| 2009-07-26 16:47|| Front Page Top

#10 Hey! I know someone with "Reset" buttons!

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-07-26 16:48|| 2009-07-26 16:48|| Front Page Top

#11 Ratchets have reversible levers.

Or you could use an end wrench, imminently reversible.

Posted by badanov 2009-07-26 17:55|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-07-26 17:55|| Front Page Top

#12 LOTP - That's a nice thought and I do concur but how, precisely, do you propose that happen? In practical terms: which politician on the national stage could be elected President in 2012 to lead the drive to dismantle leviathan? In a similar vein: aside from Reagan has any other President in the past century made any significant attempt to reduce the size, scope & reach of our federal government?

For example: during my last stint in grad school I ran across a summation of the regulatory state that concluded that each year the federal government issues 10,000 - 15,000 new laws, rules & regulations governing all aspects of small business and its interaction with everything it might touch and concern. If that pace was maintained (it actually accelerated greatly under W and has exploded under Obama but I'm citing the old and almost certainly lower number here) there would today, a decade later, be 100,000 - 150,000 new laws, rules & regulations at the *federal* level with which any new small business must comply or face a barrage of regulatory actions & litigation (since many laws include private rights of action). Layer those upon two hundred years of accumulated federal bureaucratic bloat and the various & sundry state and local laws & regulations and I submit that it is no longer possible for a person involved in a small business to comply with the law because it has become impossible to determine what the law actually is.

Drilling down one more level (to really belabor my point): as a sometime small business owner I know that there are 52 working weeks per year each of which offers around 100 possible working hours. At the midline level of the annual federal regulatory barrage, 12,500 new problems for the small business owner annually, I could work 100 hours per week with zero days off and that would leave me approximately 25 minutes to examine, comprehend, research & comply with each new federal law, rule & regulation issued in *that year*. Obviously I'd have to hire some competent helpers if I intended to comply with the pre-existing body of federal regulation. And probably one or two others to perform compliance duties imposed under state & local law (and God forbid we do business across state lines & trip multiple state regulatory schemes). With my half-dozen or so regulatory compliance people in place I could then consider hiring someone to actually produce a good or service.

Any politicians out there addressing those issues? If not there's absolutely no hope of breaking the levers of power, hitting the "reset" button or our country coming to its collective (no pun intended) senses.

I'll believe there's a slight chance of our pulling back from the abyss when I see serious advocates for things like: exempting small businesses completely from federal regulation; implementing a voluntary opt-out provision whereby consumers & businesses might interact completely outside our tort law constructs; a Constitutional Amendment requiring that no citizen pay more than a net effective cumulative (federal, state & local; income / sales / cap gains / embedded taxes in goods & services / etc.) tax of (pick your number: 10%, 15%, 20%) of his or her gross income from all sources per year; a Constitutional Amendment requiring federal spending below (pick your number: 10%, 12%, 15%) of the previous year's private sector GDP; a Constitutional Amendment requiring that regulatory costs (imposed actions, compliance, related litigation, etc.) not exceed (pick you number: 3%, 5%, 7%) of the annual private sector GDP with costs only counted and alleged savings not considered; a restructuring of federal regulatory agencies such that all regulations are stayed pending litigation over unintended consequences (defined as other than consequences discussed & acknowledged ahead of time by Congress or the agency in question) and all regulations found to have unintended consequences automatically rendered unenforceable; etc.

My point isn't to suggest that I've all the answeres (I'm sure most of the regulars here could offer far more sane & workeable suggestions than I) but merely to suggest what some of the possible answers might look like. Is there any serious person near the top of either major political party offering anything that remotely resembles a real rollback of government? If that persons exists today I'm unaware of them.

Posted by AzCat 2009-07-26 18:14|| 2009-07-26 18:14|| Front Page Top

23:43 Excalibur
23:39 gorb
23:36 gorb
23:08 James
23:02 texhooey
22:57 texhooey
22:23 Frank G
21:46 JosephMendiola
21:43 Verlaine
21:42 Hellfish
21:40 Anonymoose
21:39 Verlaine
21:39 Pappy
21:34 JosephMendiola
21:21 JosephMendiola
20:58 Procopius2k
20:42 Richard of Oregon
20:38 Richard of Oregon
20:37 Gabby
20:33 phil_b
20:27 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
20:10 Nimble Spemble
20:05 Nimble Spemble
19:59 lotp