The Daily Switch

Archive for the ‘Socialism’ Category

Bring on 2010

Posted by maker on January 7, 2010

Thank God for Bill Whittle and others like him. Enjoy…


Posted in Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Environment, Liberalism, Liberty, Politics, Socialism, The Daily Switch, War on Business | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Health-Care as Marriage

Posted by maker on November 9, 2009

Health-care is to marriage as...

Can either marriage or health-care reasonably be labeled a right?

I’ve recently been involved in a few debates over at a liberal blog called meoutsidethebox . The irony of the name is made clear by hopelessly captive thinking which permeates each leftist-talking-point-turned-article on the site. Regardless of the slant, the editor doesn’t shrink from a good debate, no matter how much he may avoid answering a direct question.

The latest article on the site poses the question ‘Is health insurance a right?’ . The obvious answer is, ‘no’ with the reason being, ‘because it’s not.’ But for people who might need a little more hand holding let’s explore it a bit further.

First, let’s clarify that there is a difference between health care and health insurance, the latter simply being one of many means of providing the former. I think that the title of the article is a bit misleading because what is subsequently discussed is care, not insurance. So let’s focus on the care.

 In the resulting arguments surrounding this issue, a constant analogy seems to be that the Constitution does not directly grant the right to marriage, but that over time we have confirmed marriage to be a right and recognize it as such. Thus, we should follow the same track for health care. Despite the analogy’s gaping holes I am fine with it. Let’s agree that healthcare should be treated as a right just as marriage is.
Is anyone proposing that the government should pay the financial, not to mention the emotional, costs of marriage? Should the government pay for the wedding? Or even the engagement ring? Should the government be tasked with finding someone willing to marry you, despite any baggage you might have? And if unwilling should the government impose regulations forcing a spouse to accept a marriage despite any and all baggage? Should this right be forced on everyone so that the singles of our society must pay a penalty for not acquiring the right of marriage? Should any man be made to marry Nancy Pelosi?

‘That’s ridiculous’ you might say, to which I’ll respond, ‘we are finally beginning to agree’. Let’s call it a right if that makes for a more amiable starting point. Now that we agree on the labels we still have the solution to flesh out.

Good news for America's divorce rate, bad news for growing old together.

Government run health-care means 'til death do us part may not seem so long.

Calling health-care a right does not mean we suspend our knowledge of history or our tendency toward logic. The idea that determining health-care a right automatically translates to support for this ruinous and ignorant proposal is embarrassingly short-sighted. As some people are painstakingly thorough to claim, ‘we are all in this together’, so let’s figure out what works so we don’t screw things up for everyone. Does history tell us anything about socialized medicine? Do economics tell us anything about incentives, or competition? Where quality is paramount, can we afford to eliminate these considerations?

Perhaps, as with marriage, government should more appropriately leave well enough alone so as to allow the American people to pursue their rights, and the ensuing costs, as they see fit.

Posted in Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Health care, Liberty, Politics, Socialism, The Daily Switch, War on Business | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments »

Fun with Pictures – The Obama Edition

Posted by maker on May 5, 2009

I’ve been collecting images as I come across things that are particularly hilarious or indicative of a tide of propaganda. Here are some of the results for your enjoyment.


"Obama: I'm not a miracle-worker."  Don't be so modest.

"Obama: I'm not a miracle-worker" Don't be so modest.

 I’m sure everyone has seen this one, but its suggestiveness is worth noting. My fear here is for those that think it more than mere opportunistic propaganda or coincidence.



Does Obama approve of vigilante justice?

Does Obama approve of vigilante justice?

Which comic was W. featured in? It’s an honest question. I can’t recall any, but am open to correction. Do you think being wrapped in a web and hung from a street light could be considered torture? What about the Green Goblin’s civil liberties?



Not at all racist.

Not at all racist.

This is just unfortunate. But how else should Germany have responded to that rousing speech Obama delivered to the world from their soil? And what’s the deal with the curry dip?



Action for action's sake

Action for action's sake

More Obama and Superfriends. Is this portending assassination attempts? Seriously? The news didn’t hype Obama’s being a target enough that it had to bleed into comic book fantasy?



Should be mandatory accessory for dashboard of all GM cars.

This should be a mandatory accessory for the dashboard of all GM cars. The price is even Union ready.


Is there anything that says you’ve made it more than having your very own bobble-head? The pop-culture overtones are obvious, but the physical action indicating yes, yes, yes may be the most telling.



German engineering at its lowest.

German engineering at its lowest.

This may be the most disturbing simply for the lack of effort. Is this doll not a child? It comes off as a hurried instance of white babe in black-face. The Germans should probably stick to cars, beer and fantasies of EU domination.




Change Everything


What the heck?!?!?


If you have any images worth sharing please email them to me. My email is listed on the ‘About’ page under maker.

Posted in Culture, Liberalism, Media, Obama, Politics, Socialism, The Daily Switch | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Creative Destruction & Failure

Posted by Ender on April 18, 2009



The term Creative Destruction was coined by Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. Creative destruction is the process where old established companies or technologies are destroyed by new or more efficient ones. Schumpeter argued that creative destruction “is the essential fact about capitalism. It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in…” (Schumpeter) What he means is that creative destruction drives capitalism, which makes sense. Capitalism is the only economic theory that encourages innovation and efficiency. With innovation comes the necessity of ridding yourself of the old. Out with the old in with new, if you will. Seems right, why would we want to keep the horse and buggy industry alive when we have cars, right?  With industries constantly evolving and improving lagging companies and technologies will be left behind.

History is rife with examples of creative destruction. Even the youngest of our readers are witnessing creative destruction as we speak. The music industry is a perfect example we have gone from records to 8 tracks to cassettes to CDs to MP3s. This is creative destruction at its finest replacing costly, low quality, inefficient products with cheap, high quality, efficient products. Other examples include iron to steel, Polaroid to digital camera, warehouse sized computers to the iPhone. One generally can’t complain about these advances.

In my opinion there is another branch of creative destruction that is usually poorly received. This type of creative destruction is the failure of businesses. The media, politicians and consumers in general decry the failure of business. But to be good citizens we must reject this urge and ask “why do businesses fail?”

At the most basic level businesses fail because a.) they are not satisfying the consumer and/or b.) they are using resources ineffectively. We should view this failure as a triumph of the free market because a.) who wants to keep a company around that is making warehouse sized computers these days? And b.) inefficient companies failing frees up valuable resources for efficient companies. Both good things.

Walmart is a good example of this second type. Walmart discovered a way to use its resources more efficiently thus lowering the cost of its products for the consumer, which in turn drove inefficient companies like KMart or various mom and pops out of business. The failure of these other businesses benefited the consumer. Unfortunately, failure of business is fought to the inevitable death (of the business) by politicians looking for votes. All this fight does is waste the taxpayers money and delay the inevitable.

Watch this video for a debate on GM going bankrupt.

In the video Gillespie tells us why we need to let GM fail. They are not too big to fail. He really summed it up perfectly in the opening minute when he says [to paraphrase] “that GM and Toyota sold about the same amount of cars worldwide, GM lost $38B and Toyota made $19B.” Clearly, there is something fundamentally and systemically wrong with the way GM runs its business. It just cannot compete in today’s economy. We need to let creative destruction or failure take place to free up resources for the better companies. Gillespie brings up several other good points about GM and bailouts in general. He also has to defend a cheap pot shot from his counterpart when he says something to the effect that the free market only works on paper.

Let these companies fall into bankruptcy, restructure their business and come back with the ability to compete.  Don’t spend taxpayer money on corporate welfare.  Don’t throw good money after what is clearly bad.  Don’t follow the politicians and drones in the media down the path of state run economies and massive systemic failure.  Rejoice that the free market separates the wheat from the chaff.  Appreciate creative destruction.

Posted in Capitalism, Economics, Socialism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The Great Overreach

Posted by Ender on April 4, 2009

The problem with the Liberal philosophy is that it has an unquenchable thirst for power. When was the last time you heard a Modern Liberal, not to be confused with a Classical Liberal, call for a decrease in Government? I guess I should clarify, when have they asked for a decrease in Government outside of Law Enforcement and the Military? This should not be a surprise even to Liberals because the idea that the Government can solve any problem is at the core of their belief system. “Failure is not the product of his beliefs but merely want of power and resources.” (Levin) A belief system with this at its heart will invariably lead to severe overreaches when they are in power. In only about two short months we have seen several examples of overreach.


Barney Frank

Barney Frank

On March 22nd, I wrote a piece about how the administration was seeking to control executive pay. I asked “How long until it’s not just executives anymore?” Well, unfortunately, it appears the answer was 2 days. On May 24th, the House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank passed the Pay For Performance Act of 2009. The act “is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.” It would give power to the Treasury department to determine if salaries are unreasonable.

Initially, this would be justified by only applying to companies that took bailout money. The problem I see is the problem of the slippery slope. Just look at where it has taken us so far, from just executives to all employees of bailout companies to…..what? I am reminded of Wickard v. Filburn, a case tried before the Supreme Court. In the 1940s (through today) the Federal Government has the ability to regulate interstate trade. In the Wickard ruling, the Supreme Court decided that it could regulate whether a private citizen could grow crops on his own land to use for his own consumption. How could the Court do this, you ask? Well, the Court said that by not participating in interstate trade the farmer affected interstate trade, thus opening him up to regulation. With rulings like this it doesn’t take much to imagine a situation where the Government declares it can control all salaries.

Running a Business

Giethner and Bernanke

Giethner and Bernanke

Treasury Secretary Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke argued for the ability to “regulate and even take over financial goliaths whose collapse could imperil the entire economy.” Shockingly, Obama agreed. This is such a large overreach/power grab that I am surprised they had the audacity to ask for it. The Government has no right to take over companies like this. The only thing Geithner and Bernanke disagreed on was which of them should have the power. In another post I wrote I talked about how Obama and his team decided that they knew more about the auto industry than the board of GM. The Government cannot run a car company, a bank, a financial institution, a hospital (see Walter Reed) or a post office. A commenter asked what Wagoner (former CEO of GM) knew about running a car company. I ask what does the Government know about running an economy, specifically Geithner. You can learn all about how Geithner devastated the Indonesian Economy in the 90s. In a post on what caused the Tech Boom I briefly mentioned part of its cause was due to the Asian crisis. Guess who was behind it? “[B]y frightening the Chinese into building their vast $US2 trillion foreign reserves, Geithner was responsible for the build-up of tremendous imbalance in the world financial system. This imbalance, in turn, according to Keating, contributed to the global financial crisis which has since devastated the world economy.” Three cheers for Geithner!

Free Speech

Supreme Court

Supreme Court

There have been many attacks on Free Speech in the last few years. Most of them are under the guise of fairness. McCain-Feingold was a blatant attack on free political speech. “Just last week, the Obama administration argued before the Supreme Court that it has no principled constitutional problem with banning books.” (Goldberg) The Supreme Court is hearing a case about a documentary called Hillary: The Movie. “Several justices asked the deputy solicitor general, Malcolm Stewart, if there would be any constitutional reason why the ban on documentaries and ads couldn’t be extended to books carrying similar messages. Stewart, speaking for a president who once taught constitutional law, said Congress can ban books “if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy” for a candidate and was supported, even slightly, with corporate money. Such advocacy, Stewart conceded, could amount to negatively mentioning a politician just once in a 500-page book put out by a mainstream publisher.” I guess these words just aren’t clear enough “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Before people start commenting on McCain being on the Right, give me a break. He has more in common with the Left than the Right, which is why he lost the election.)

These are just a few examples of the overreaches we have seen lately. Let’s hope the American people remember Liberty and wake up soon.

Posted in Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Liberalism, Liberty, Obama, Politics, Socialism, War on Business | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Fighter of Inflation

Posted by Ender on March 31, 2009

Proponents of the Federal Reserve say that you need the Fed to control monetary supply and inflation. In our series on the Federal Reserve we argued that the Fed itself creates inflation. So, in light of recent events it appears that the Fed is doing its best to “control” inflation. Here is how they are doing it; by spending or lending $12.8 trillion of cash/credit. Yes, that is a TRILLION. Let’s put that into perspective:

1. That is about forty two thousand dollars per individual living in the US. That’s a good thing right?

2. It equals about 90% of the US’s GDP (2008). (GDP is the total amount in dollars of everything produced in the entire country.) That’s a good thing right?

Inflation?  Not on his watch

Inflation? Not on his watch

So, how does this fight inflation? Don’t look at me for an answer because I don’t have one. My question is, are they done destroying our currency and economy? “FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair warned that the insurance fund to protect customer deposits at U.S. banks could dry up because of bank failures.” Oh…well I guess we can all take respite that the Fed is there to control this kind of stuff.

Posted in Capitalism, Economics, Socialism, The Federal Reserve | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Healthcare Liz Lemon Style

Posted by Ender on March 10, 2009

One show that I watch is 30 Rock.  It’s usually pretty funny if you can set aside the ridiculous left leaning digs at Republicans, Capitalists, Christians and Conservatives.  I’ve watched the show since the first season but it seems as if this season, which I believe is season 3, is blatantly drifting more towards the left.  The jokes on the right are getting more frequent and more obnoxious.  The show is also guilty of outright lies.

30 Rock Cast

30 Rock Cast

In the episode about the Flu Shot, Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) declines a flu shot that was only being given to the actors and management while the crew does not get one.  She says something to the effect that she is tired of rationing health care in this system.  Unfortunately, I don’t think the whole episode is online but the recap is here.

After she said this I did a double take. What? Really, running out of jokes so you need to make things up? Countries with Socialist or Universal Health Care are the ones who are rationing health care.

In the following BBC article, it is revealed that of doctors surveyed 16% said patients have died as a result of rationing. Over 50% said that patients have suffered due to it. “Doctors said more debate was urgently needed over what should and should not be rationed.” This is scary. The debate isn’t over how to stop this rationing from occurring, but which products and treatments to ration.

Back to the show: Liz says, “Two tiered health care is a crime. You know in Cuba everyone gets equal health care.” To the show’s credit Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) responds with wow, you’ve seen the Michael Moore movie. Liz responds with “Wrong again, I saw the trailer when I went to see The Chipmunks.” Which is funny AND true of most socialist health care supporters. She is wrong on at least three counts:

1. Whatever she means by “two tiered health care” is not a crime. I can only assume that she is calling the US system two tier. Who should go to jail for this crime Liz? Should we send the doctors or the patients to jail? I can only imagine her going down this thought process “Who is responsible for this mess? Wait, the People created this? Well, who are they to get in the way of what I, yes I, deem a right for everyone?”

2. Everyone in Cuba does not get equal health care. It’s funny because there are exactly two types in Cuba. The kind the ruling elites have and everyone else.

3. Clarification on number 2. The poor get no health care, but at least they’re covered!

Dr. Michael Dixon, chairman of the NHS Alliance said this “Rationing is the great unspoken reality…The only people who refuse to mention the ‘r-word’ are the media and the politicians, who continue to want to promise everything for everyone in order to win elections.” How strange, only the media and the politicians. Well, like Liz, the politicians and media can’t let silly facts get in the way of their ideology.

Posted in Capitalism, Culture, Economics, Health care, Socialism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Introduction to Conservatism

Posted by maker on February 27, 2009

This is maker’s contribution to our friends at TruPolitics for their Conservatism vs. Liberalism debate.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending to small a degree of it.”
-Thomas Jefferson


As a young man, I remember listening to my father as he spoke of the world, man, and how things worked, with a fascinated reverence for this thing called Conservatism. Awe would tighten his voice as he told of the seamless way that this ideology worked with and through the strengths and weaknesses of man.  What my dad grasped, and passed on to me, is that conservatism is the only line of thinking that allows for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the only way for us to connect with and uphold that which the Founders had in mind. Conservatism is a deep breath. It is a pause to consider what we can glean from history and how best to apply these lessons to the situations and dilemmas facing us today. Where liberalism demands action, and action now, conservatism prescribes a tempered consideration of the past, present and the potential futures, before acting. Take, for example, our current administration and their saber rattling reaction to the mere mention of deliberation or debate, on a ‘stimulus’ package deemed by some of its most ardent supporters as only 70% likely to succeed, at best.

Liberty is at the core of conservatism. A love and defense of liberty fuels the entire philosophy. You won’t hear liberals speak of liberty very often, and for good reason. Liberty sits in direct opposition to the policies of the left. For the ideals of liberalism to be implemented, the people must willingly or unwittingly surrender an increasingly large portion of their liberty. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of liberal ‘accomplishments’ are demonstrable attacks on liberty in the name of growing a ‘benevolent’ government. You see, from the left’s vantage point you don’t and can’t know what is best for your life, so you need the government to intervene on your behalf. Conservatism says that government can never know the best interests of its citizenry, or provide for them, nearly as well as an unencumbered free people can themselves.

The fundamental differences between liberalism and conservatism pertain to the preferred size of government. Liberals: the bigger the better. Conservatives: less is more. These views have a direct causal relationship with the amount of liberty the citizens are afforded. Conservatism recognizes and encourages the goodness that man can achieve without placing faith in the mythical idea of man being inherently good. Where liberalism seeks to control and stifle people for their own good, conservatism seeks to set free and embolden people to pursue their best interests autonomously.

Conservatism looks to free market capitalism as the only historically viable economic environment for freedom, while liberalism stubbornly places its faith in systems proved fatally flawed by history. Conservatism seeks in all things to preserve the framers intent for this country to limit the size and scope of government while ensuring the freedom of the common man. The Constitution was developed to this end, and has shaped our nation into the greatest the world has ever known. Conservatism views this greatness as something to be preserved and defended against the eroding effect of liberalism’s continual creep towards socialism.

Practically, what better time than now to look at the issue of taxes? Conservatism and liberalism line up reliably as supportive of lower taxes and higher taxes, respectively. More and more, liberals are admitting that their desire to tax the wealthy is less focused on government revenue than it is on ‘fairness’ or ‘leveling the playing field.’ Conservatives advocate lowering taxes across the board, and especially encouraging small and large business growth through lowered corporate tax rates. Liberals want to exponentially raise taxes on the top two tax brackets in an attempt to, as President Obama famously said, “spread the wealth around.” But, as Dr. Adrian Rogers said, “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom… [y]ou cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” The inconvenient truth here is that, historically, government revenues increase as tax rates decrease and decrease as they increase. If you continue to raise taxes on these individuals, you discourage growth, job creation, and investment. If you cut corporate tax rates, you create an environment of productivity for a flourish of businesses that provide the jobs and products that Americans depend on. In this way conservatism embraces logic, the laws of economics, and liberty in a free market society.

There are countless ways that conservatism opposes the ill-formed and damaging ideas of the left and seeks to preserve what is right and good; that which we value most, by proposing time-tested solutions that honor the laws of nature and man. Conservatism perseveres despite the disadvantages of a Republican Party that has become more betrayer than advocate, a seemingly endless barrage of mischaracterizations by a hostile press, and an increasingly entitlement-friendly society. The place in a person that takes pride in hard work, relishes freedom and demands equal justice under the law is, on some level, inexorably drawn to conservatism.

Consider Jefferson’s notion above. This is the choice between left and right, liberal and conservative, tyranny and liberty.

Posted in Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Liberalism, Liberty, Politics, Socialism | Tagged: , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Venezuela’s Road to Serfdom Part 1

Posted by Ender on February 20, 2009

Hugo Chavez

Hugo Chavez

Recently in Venezuela, the dictator Hugo Chavez “won” the right to be elected to office indefinitely.  This was a severe blow to the opposition party in Venezuela.  However, this is just the latest example of, as F.A. Hayek called it, The Road to Serfdom.  In short, Hayek’s thesis was that central planning or what you may call socialism, fascism or collectivism always leads to tyranny.  We will cover if Venezuela is socialist, socialism’s effect on the economy and how this turned into a tyranny.

Is Venezuela Socialist?

The first place we will look is at Chavez’s own words.  During his so called “Bolivarian Revolution” of the last 10 years he has said “Those who voted “yes” today voted for socialism, for revolution”, Venezuela will be led to “21st-century socialism”,”Fatherland! Socialism or death, I swear it!”,”Destiny has been written. That new era has begun. We have shown that Venezuela is red! … No one should fear socialism. … Socialism is human. Socialism is love. Down with imperialism! We need a new world!” and he has also called Jesus “the greatest socialist in history.”  So it’s pretty safe to say that the President of Venezuela thinks his country is socialist.

But, quotes alone don’t make a country socialist.  The Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index, which is released annually, measure the the various levels of freedom in each country.  It takes into account Business Freedom, Trade Freedom, Fiscal Freedom, Gov’t Size, Monetary Freedom, Investment Freedom, Financial Freedom, Property Rights, Freedom from Corruption and Labor Freedom.  Venezuela ranked 178 out of 183 in overall Economic Freedom (39.9 total).  It was also in a four way tie for last place with Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea in the measuring of Property Rights.  To give you a reference point the USA is ranked 6th and has a score of 80.7 and is near the top of the list in Property Rights (multi-way tie).  Since Chavez’s rule started in 1999 the Economic Freedom number has dropped from 56.1 to 39.9.  Socialized economies are always less free than their Capitalist counterparts.

Here are few more detailed examples of Venezuelan socialism.  In 1970, Venezuela nationalized the oil industry.  Chavez has nationalized the electrical and telecommunications industries.  “Price freezes on key consumables have driven hundreds of Venezuelan farmers out of business, and forced importation of foodstuffs — which are provided at heavily subsidized prices in the poorest districts. Queues as long as five hours often result, and after waiting, would-be buyers often find rice or sugar or chicken already sold out. Venezuela was once a major producer of beef cattle. No longer: Ranches have been confiscated by the government and overrun by opportunistic campesinos. Mismanagement has decimated the national cattle herd.”  (Thompson) Early in 2008, Chavez nationalized the largest steel maker.  Perhaps one of the more scary nationalizations occurring under Chavez was the the take over of the banks.  In 1848, Karl Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto “The Proletariat will use its political supremacy, to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie…Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”  Price controls and nationalization of industries are right out of the socialist playbook.

The move towards socialism in Venezuela started prior to Chavez’s reign, however, his rhetoric and actions moved the country quickly towards a full scale socialist country.  In part two, we will look at how the move towards socialism has affected the economy.

Posted in Capitalism, Economics, Liberty, Socialism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Healthy Horse

Posted by Ender on February 13, 2009

“Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.”

-Winston Churchill

In which category do you consider yourself?

I’d consider myself to be in a minority of people who fall into the last category listed by Churchill. But why? Why can’t most people see the relationship between private enterprise and freedom? Why can’t people see that Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism?

In the article linked above, Lew Rockwell tells of a story about going out to lunch with friends. The discussion turns to economics and they start bashing Capitalism and Wal-Mart etc. When Rockwell starts defending it they say “Well, I suppose I’m really a socialist at heart.” Why? Why? My blood boils at that statement. Rockwell writes, “In short, the wish for socialism is a wish for unparalleled human evil. If we really understood this, no one would express casual support for it in polite company. It would be like saying, you know, there is really something to be said for malaria and typhoid and dropping atom bombs on millions of innocents.”

No, this is not over dramatic. Just one sample, how many must starve at its hand? Look at the absurdity in the statement by Rockwell’s friends. “You are surrounded by the blessings of capitalism. The buffet table, which you and your lunch partners only had to walk into a building to find, has a greater variety of food at a cheaper price than that which was available to any living person — king, lord, duke, plutocrat, or pope — in almost all of the history of the world. Not even fifty years ago would this have been imaginable.” Within 15 minutes of where you live you have at your disposal more food than the richest king in history had available. It’s not even close.

“We owe this scene to capitalism. To put it differently, we owe this scene to centuries of capital accumulation at the hands of free people who have put capital to work on behalf of economic innovations, at once competing with others for profit and cooperating with millions upon millions of people in an ever-expanding global network of the division of labor. The savings, investments, risks, and work of hundreds of years and uncountable numbers of free people have gone into making this scene possible, thanks to the ever-remarkable capacity for a society developing under conditions of liberty to achieve the highest aspirations of the society’s members.” Did you catch that? “FREE people.”

People are not free under socialism. “Socialism always means overriding the free decisions of individuals and replacing that capacity for decision making with an overarching plan by the state.” Could you consider those living in East Germany under Communism free? Was the Berlin Wall keeping people in or out?

So yes, I consider myself in the last category. I see private enterprise as the healthy horse pulling society towards freedom. I see it pulling us away from hunger. I also see Socialism as the evil wolf from which we must defend our horse. We cannot allow it to succeed. Socialism is unacceptable. Do not let people get away with pretending it is not so.

Posted in Capitalism, Economics, Socialism | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »