Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Socialism, Be Careful What You Wish For Division

Victor Davis Hanson wonders what socialists actually expected.
Here at home, Obama got his ObamaCare. Why, then, did he grant hundreds of exemptions — many to northern California liberals? Should they instead not have lined up to volunteer to implement such a wonderful, long-needed entitlement?

He said energy would rightly sky-rocket, given his determination to curb fossil fuel production (cf. “bankrupt” coal companies). Why then is Obama concerned that gas hit $4; is not such a high price a welcomed retardant to burning hot fuels? The higher the gas prices, the more that subsidized wind and solar power, and electric cars are attractive, and thus the more we enjoy “sustainable” power. Right? Am I missing something about this desire within our grasp of “living within our means”?
Ah, there’s always the pesky problem of the breaking-a-few-eggs phase before our omelet utopia gets served up. Yet, come to think of it, has socialism ever managed to do anything beyond breaking eggs? Has anyone ever seen the great egalitarian omelet? I believe Hanson is definitely on to something in identifying what is essentially the criminal fraud that is socialism (or liberalism or progressivism – name your poison). Back to VDH:
So what is socialism? It is a sort of modern version of Louis XV’s “Après moi, le déluge” – an unsustainable Ponzi scheme in which elite overseers, for the duration of their own lives, enjoy power, influence, and gratuities by implementing a system that destroys the sort of wealth for others that they depend upon for themselves.
Bingo. Socialism is unsustainable and everybody knows it, even its proponents.So, what happens when democracy approaches the stage in which the larcenous majority, or their representatives – democratically elected, mind you – start confiscating private property, either through the subterfuge of taxation and regulation, or just plain outright through executive fiat? Oh, wait. GM…Chrysler…Why, it’s already happening! It will be more than simply mildly interesting to see if the voters, in 2012, express buyer’s remorse on a grand scale, or decide, instead, to become accessories to the fraud. No, it will be a fascinating, mesmerizing election, filled with portents of our country’s future, the fork in the road leading to a resurgence of personal freedom and responsible government, or to the sterile, soul-destroying society of the welfare state – or to civil war.


RebeccaH said...

I expect to see the biggest get-out-the-vote push by Democrats this nation has ever seen, and lots and lots of dirty tricks.

Anonymous said...

Being that the Liberals are really big on sustainability, they shouldn't be so cozy with socialism. This is quite a conundrum for them. Reminds me of the sign at the local Whole Foods: "Hearst Beef, local and sustainable". The problems here are that of course it is sustainable...1 bull + 2 cows means more beef, but the Hearst ranch is far from local. Guess "local" means something different to the Libs.

Deborah Leigh

thefrollickingmole said...

It will last as long as 51% are able to be brought off with what the other 49% make.

Our own red headed wich is attmepting stealth socialism using the carbon tax as cover. "9 out of 10 households will be compensated", gee wonder how the other 1 out of 10 feel about that?

Gina Rinehart, Australias richest person (a woman no less!!) said this at the launch of her newest venture.
It could be straight out of Atlas shugged.

"For the cost of building this trial mine alone, I could have bought myself a beautiful new private jet," she told her audience in a clear dig at peers like Andrew Forrest. "But you've seen those trucks and shovels out there. Who would be paying the wages of these contractors if I had spent that on a luxurious private jet and two pilots?

"Indeed, for the further costs of paying my terrific staff working hard on these projects and the consultants' studies for the pre-feasibility study and the bankable feasibility study and now value engineering, together employing hundreds of people, I could have dotting for myself one or two beautiful yachts like many of my friends have and employed six or more yacht crew and taken off."


Paco said...

frollicking: Sounds like an admirable woman. She and J. Packington Paco III would make a nice couple (although, possibly, all the ethics would be on her side of the family).

thefrollickingmole said...

I thing Packington might meet his match with her...
Thewre was an exceedingly nast and bitter period when her and her fathers "trophy wife" were at each other for a decade or so.

So shes no stranger to lawyerly machinations.

She has recently brought a large share in Australian media organisations (including the Andrew Bolt show) in order to fight what she sees as media left wing bias.

Time will tell if shes a great woman, but at the moment shes headed towards legendary.