Among the issues most commonly discussed are individuality, the rights of the individual, the limits of legitimate government, morality, history, economics, government policy, science, business, education, health care, energy, and man-made global warming evaluations. My posts are aimed at intelligent and rational individuals, whose comments are very welcome.

"No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it." Ayn Rand

"Observe that the 'haves' are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the 'have-nots' have not." Ayn Rand

"The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not 'selflessness' or 'sacrifice', but integrity." Ayn Rand

26 November 2016

Justin Trudeau, while a controversial figure, loved socialism with all his heart.

Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, as part of his official statement on the overdue death of Cuban Communist and Military Dictator Fidel Castro, said:
"it is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.”
“While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for ‘el Comandante."
Except of course those Cubans who fled Cuba, died in his prisons or in rebellion, or were afraid to complain about the total lack of freedom and the sad deprivation of all material needs that Castro blessed his beloved people with.

The Canadian people should be terrified that their Prime Minister could affirm the dark and life-threatening actions of the Monster of Cuba.  Under Stephen Harper, Prime Minister from 2006 to 2015, Canada climbed in the freedom rankings of nations.  As too often happens, the emptiness of the promises of the Socialists are soon forgotten and the people yearn for something for nothing once again.  They turned to the socialist Justin Trudeau in Canada as a pleasant mask to hide this dark and evil yearning.  Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau just flashed a sight of how destructive and corrosive his core belief in socialism is.


Threnody said...

Do they still get the benefit of the doubt? I mean, do we still believe that the folks supporting collectivism in whatever form are really aiming at something for *nothing?* I frankly can't believe it any longer. I think they know exactly that what they want is "something from somebody else." Could there really be some left who think the state somehow produces wealth from which to distribute? I suppose. But it can't be an appreciable number any longer. I recommend we no longer give the collectivists even the benefit of the doubt in our common speech. There has never been, in the history of the world, 'something' for 'nothing.' Ever. And they know it.

I think the reason so many are attracted to the socialists or collectivists, is that they have no experience with well maintained law, and lots of experience with all manner of advantages bestowed by government through corrupt law that favors this or that business / corporation / group / etc. When the law itself is not justice but instead is the actual legalization of cheating, what options are then open to the citizen? I think most, if not explicitly in their own minds, feel that if 'it's all fixed/ rigged/ corrupt / etc.' anyway, then by God, 'my group is going to get theirs.' Or, 'We'll use government force to make things a certain standard, that we define, for the poor, or the common man, or the little people, or the average joe, etc.' If government must be a tool for cheating, the masses must be care for, or placated, depending on your perspective. In the US, some 23% of gdp gets funneled into some form of social welfare. The republicans miss the reality of the situation when they only scream and yell about this sort of theft (or are complicit, or are part of the great lie.) Very few ask how much of the remaining 77% of gdp is directed by some form of govt. cheating / favoritism / special loans / special tax structure / tariffs / favoring regulation / bailout / special rates / tax or regulatory structures that favors established businesses in general / etc.

Threnody said...

The social welfare is chump change. The left and right seem to fight over how large a portion of the loot should go to keep the masses 'happy.' But very very few question the entire system of cheating itself - and this cheating is perhaps even more prevalent in our local and state governments than even at the federal level. I hear very few voices any longer calling for returning law to justice - no cheating, no favoritism, for anyone or any group. The excuse given for the cheating is typically "this regulation or law will help the 'community' or 'state' or 'country' or 'the people' as a whole." What they mean however is that they think that a certain majority (if that) is benefitted by whatever it is they are proposing as law. The proper question is whether anyone's rights are being violated by the law, as then it is certainly not a common good. The short sightedness is truly astounding. Those forwarding such cheating as 'for the common good,' are either lying or can not see that they are a terrible harm if they are legislating for the range of the moment. To cheat for the advantage of any particular company or product in the *now*, is discriminatory to developing better ideas or future better companies etc., let alone the unfairness done to competitors in the market now. Can they not see this?! Can the people not see that the bureaucrats idea of what's best is the LAST opinion we should take on the matter? If we legislate to help the torch, we may lose the light bulb forever.

As a practical matter, if the socialism / collectivism is to be defeated politically, the corporate / business / wealthy cheating must be attacked first. This has been historically a terrible mistake on the right, as they have traditionally made a fuss over the social welfare type of cheating. I don't know if it is because those active politically just don't understand, or if they are cheaters themselves.

ps The problem, of course, is much bigger than 'how do we fashion a government that does not cheat for anyone?' The problem is 'how do we move from an intricately astoundingly corrupt system of cheats upon cheats upon cheats in every facet of government action in nearly every aspect of our lives - to a government that cheats for no one.' This is a much much bigger problem politically because there are millions of honest people's livelihoods that would be disrupted in some way should law be returned to only justice. Our best political minds should be working on THAT. Examples: how to get government out of medicine with the least amount of harm, out of social security without further cheating anyone, out of education without making a worse mess, etc. etc. With no practical, clear, detailed plans addressing the real possible harms/ issues involved in extricating government from activities in which it CAN NOT act justly, we're just whistling in the wind.

Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. said...

Thank you Threnody for your astute comments.

We know that those who admire Saul Alinsky, such as Obama and Hillary, believe that corruption is a necessary part of the political process and should be embraced. Of course the socialists have long defined the truth as that which advances socialism, so what we call Obama's lies about ObamaCare are to them the truth. Then there was Slick Willy trying to debate the meaning of "is", so they really do live in their own fantasy world. They have some inkling that their fantasy world is very different than that the unannointed live in, but we are such inferior beings in their worldview that this does not matter. Except, it is difficult to maintain the fantasy, which is why they so hate to be challenged with other viewpoints and claim we are awful for being so aggressive as to do so. When your home is built of glass, you are afraid of any thrown stone. So they only hang out with one another in their overcrowded urban centers of the like-minded.

I do find it rich that while the Progressive Elitists are constantly using force to make me live by their supposed values or milking me for the money to pay off the voters and campaign contributors they bought, they claim I am aggressive for challenging their ideas.

Most of the politicians are knowingly corrupt. Many of the voters are also, but I am not sure that means most of them. Many would say that they just want government to provide the greater good to the greater number. Few seem to understand that to be the license it is to hurt many people on a given issue to supposedly provide other people with a greater good. Neither do they understand that while a particular person may be helped on one issue, he will be hurt on others. In a free private sector, he can engage others in ways to further almost all of his values, but in a government-dominant system he will much more frequently be among those hurt in a transaction he has not chosen to enter into. This necessarily creates a society of factions always at one another's throats so you will not be hurt in those transactions you are forced into. The warfare among factions becomes vicious because one is so often violated in such a system and a death spiral occurs in which not-so-bad people become worse and worse to protect themselves from further harm. A society is quickly degraded because it followed the maxim of the greatest good for the greater number, instead of the principle to respect everyone's individual rights. Understanding these basic truths seems to be beyond the mental capacity of most people, especially once they are immersed in the violent society of fragmented groups and tribalism necessitated by the big government, ubiquitous force model. This model re-enforces their belief that man by nature is evil. Oddly, they respond by claiming that more government force is needed to deal with such inherently evil men. Truly this is a death spiral, but few recognize it as such, despite the many lessons of history.

opit said...

You two are having quite the discussion.
When one lives in a 'settler nation' ( think the Israeli Occupation of Palestine as an extreme instance ) the assumptions of the Crown stealing the land and re-selling it while keeping a registry regulating use such as mineral rights rather escapes notice - unless you are one of the people thrown off the land. The Crown issues otherwise worthless I.O.U.s as a currency monopoly ( soon to be solely electronic from the looks of things ) while allowing rentals of government powers such as permission to drive vehicles....or even to collect taxes. That scheme is Biblical.
All of this of course goes back to feudalism : government by army and force which enslaves people. Today things are progressive. The state merely regulates necessities of life and their acquisition, hiding enslavement of people. Serfdom is thus changed in appearance - but not in fact.
The only fairness by thieves is that of their storytelling : cons to hide the basic facts of a system of deceit designed to pilfer profits and confiscate them while selling the proposition that 'enemies' necessitate army and police regulation of the population. School assists in this.
If you want a child to learn, show him how to access a library and its content, regardless of its nature. ( Ben Franklin ) Curiosity nurtured is a powerful educator. Anything else reeks of mind washing. That is how TED started btw ; kids needing help dealing with the mental abuse of the state classroom. ( Charlotte Iserbyt has a number of YouTube videos dealing with the 'dumbing down' of students )
I like the Wikipedia entry for Kleptocracy and its Narco subsection ( druglords, in fact ) as a descriptor of many governments. The lipstick on the pig is not going to change its appetites. When George Orwell ( Blair ) was young he fought with the anarchists against Franco in Spain pre WW II ( after which he ended up spewing hate for the BBC as a radio announcer ). That taught him a number of home truths about the essentials of Authoritarianism outlined in his autobiographical "Homage to Catalonia."
Sidebar : It was pointed out there is a greater physical resemblance between Justin and Fidel - especially of height - than between he and P.E.T.