Posted by
Toddy Littman on Friday, October 24, 2008 11:00:00 PM
The trick to redistribution and socialism is, in simple terms:
socialism = controlling the means of production, right?
When
person A, who produces nothing, asks the government to get what person
A needs to survive from person B, who produces more than enough for
themselves (because they like it that way, which would seem to be up to
them since it's their work and negotiating effort that resulted in
lucrative activity) then government is controlling both person A's
means of production and person B's reliance on receiving what they
negotiated to receive for work performed, or their productive
generation of the means of production for person A, the government, and
themselves -- everyone's means of production reliant on person B alone.
Government controlling person B by taking anything away from them for
any reason is exercising control on the means of production overall.
Thus redistribution is socialism.
Understand
by the rolls of people who have been on welfare, food stamps, or other
social aid most of their lives, sometimes some 30 and 40 years or more
(though occasionally taking a job so as to at least appear they are
trying to be on their own), there is a pattern and appearance of just
being in the character of person A above, always ready to claim
entitlement from others.
Often this is due to antecedent
resentments that politically are exploited every 4 years, generally by
liberal democrats playing on the person A people who resent those who
have more than they do.
This occurs even if liberal programs
such as Fannie and Freddie were the primary cause of the financial
meltdown, their quasi government status used to strong arm banks, these
institutions assured encouragement of banks to loan to those who cannot
pay back due to the potential of lawsuits filed by lawyers such as
Barack Obama who was chosen by ACORN to be their lawyer just for such
lawsuits, lawsuits alleging discrimination on the basis of the bank
wanting to not loan to people who cannot pay the loan back. Let us not
forget Fannie and Freddie used our money, some 180 million dollars, to
lobby for political favor, which essentially resulted in Barack Obama
getting an 80% pay raise as a U.S. Senator from Fannie and Freddie
alone.
In other words, the success of banks, in the role of
person B above, is subjected to the whim of person A via lawsuit,
resulting in a financial catastrophe that negatively effected person B
further, government has no idea how or what to do to fix it, and, by
the election polling data in this election, it appears will only result
in person A being able to demand more from anyone who pursues to be the
productive person B.
The "socialism" in another way here is the
conditioning over time of no one wanting to be person B and everyone
wanting to be person A because there is little value in being the
producer without having a say over what happens to what you produced,
be it the product or the wealth you hoped it would provide, for
yourself to determine the distribution of. This conditioning of course,
in the future, passes all power to the government to determine who of
those not producing can be taken from, for other reasons than
production, in order to give to the new person A people so as not to
discourage them from pursuing being non-productive whim demanding
whiners. Eventually the government has only to determine minor
differences amongst large groups of person A people, who, now reliant
on government, are docile and haven't any fight left in them. The
government becomes the "bank" for everything their complete control
created by the premise that person A, who, like a spoiled brat, doesn't
want to produce, but is erroneously deemed to be of authority to use
government to demand from person B. -- Government the arbiter, and
dictator, of criterial determinations, or as known in the former Soviet
Union: The Politburo.
Thanks for reading.