Socialism is the creed of blood-suckers -- they wish only to live off the work of others as 'managers,' 'administrators,' 'officers,' 'planners,' etc.. They claim to be champions of the worker but would never consider such work for themselves personally. Socialism encourages powerlessness -- they are the 'saviors' of our victimhood. People not in need of saving are the enemy. Self-reliance is considered selfish. The goal of socialism is to tear down, to domesticate, to socially engineer society, to change the way people self-identify -- they have the answer to who I am and why I am here. To reject their plans is to be a capitalist pig worthy of violence, which is put into 'law' in order to intimidate the independent. Socialism is just another con -- it has never delivered on its promises and never will.

Robert, I find your comment irreconcilable with your expressed admiration of Karl Marx's ideals in previous posts.

How so, Robert? I have at least tried to explain my argument, you have merely made an ad hominem remark. (Lazy)

'A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave ... is far happier, because ... he is always sure of support.' -- Sounds just like the argument of Democrats in which we all are considered on the plantation and merely demand better conditions of our servitude. See, without masters, people are helpless and in need of saving -- to enslave them is to save them.

Just to clarify, Robert, is communist China the 'real' socialism (not the "faux socialism of the left")? How about North Korea (very clean, no crime)? How about Venezuela (which you have expressed support for in the past)? Cuba? How about Russia? Do you know how many people were wiped out by these socialists? Socialism is government of central banks -- they are the real 'governors', they hold the world's capital as collateral and all of us must pay rent for the use of the money supply, which is used for all of life's economic transactions. Call it what you will, but the central banks are at the top of the pyramid. Remove this plank, socialism in the Western world would collapse -- our only salvation would be that those that survived would NOT REPEAT the corruption.

Robert, you show your true colors, which contradict any classical liberal defense you have made before. You are right that the banks (and to all they provide 'credit') are the biggest benefactors of socialism -- central banking of fiat currency is an ESSENTIAL plank of communism. Show me an uncorrupt socialist/communist government to emulate -- Russia had to return to the free market if they were ever to break out of perpetual poverty. Today's advocates of socialism ignore that under socialist rule, the wealth of the 'rich' is taken by the new communist aristocracy (the Politburo) and the common people must either join the Red Army or starve.

The 'promise' of socialism is a LIE -- it cannot be fulfilled because each person is ultimately responsible for the condition and quality of one's life. Such arrogance of authoritarianism stinks. Being born is not victimhood! Wake up and thank God for the gift that this life is -- stop blaming others, it is childish, grow up. Double-think is designed to arrest reason and can appeal to emotion only. Good grief.

Once again, Mick, you are proving Thatcher's point. The "redistributive wealth mechanisms" ran out of other people's money. "The NHS and Welfare state are teetering" because they ran out of other people's money. How did you think Thatcher could pay for these programs once they have run out of other people's money? More money from other people? "Thatcher was a disaster for the UK" Welfare State -- good! That was the intention. If you want manufacturing to come back, you will have to lower the labor costs -- which are artifically propped up by socialist mechanisms -- therefore you cannot produce and must import goods manufactured with cheap labor. There is only so much redistribution you can do -- you need more production in order to redistribute more. When there are more regulators than producers, eventually the group will starve, no matter how much redistribution you can enforce. This is the reason central banks were created -- so that the regulators can just print up the money when they cannot extract anymore from the populace. It of course devalues all the money the people already possess, but every bureaucrat and soldier still gets paid. Little by little the economy collapses, and the banks foreclose and seize the country's capital, then rent it back to those that lost it. This is socialism!

Ah, the quest for power, the root of humankind's oppression. Thus 'liberation' becomes the common theme for the common man throughout the ages. The heart of so many spiritual practices is humility, thankfulness, and charity as 'the way' to liberate oneself from the madness of the king's follies. It takes a lot of courage in the face of such power, to assert one's liberty -- few would choose such a path given a choice between the security of the kingsmen and the risk of liberty.

Mick and Robert (both liberal Brits) have merely proved Thatcher's point!! (Neither of whom are in the manufacturing business, I'm willing to bet.) They are merely complaining about not enough socialism. Those high interest rates are the banks culling the herd, just as designed -- one of the pillars of communism. Sheesh, do you ever get tired speaking out of both sides of your mouth?

And YES "Soviet Russia [was] the full, actual, literal, consistent embodiment of the morality of altruism, that Stalin did not corrupt a noble ideal, [but that his use of brutality was] the only way altruism has to be or can ever be practiced."

Right on!

Most of men's troubles are due to rejecting present reality in exchange for 'a promise' of a better future. MANY are easily conned out of their own power by believing in someone else's promises. They will give up the power of their own lives in exchange for a 'lord' who will protect them and provide for them. A place in the royal court is desired. Socialism and monarchy/dictatorship are essentially the same. The rulers control/tax all the property, labor and production, with armies of employees regulating and protecting the various rackets of the 'crown.'

Today, the world is run in a similar fashion, with the world's central banks and the UN as the monarchy and aristocracy in order to fix the problem of running out of other people's money -- just print up more! The truth is that with a currency that you can just print up, taxes are only necessary to keep the monarchy in riches and the poor in their proper station.

The world's currencies are but promises to pay -- IOU's. The entire money supply of the world is an IOU that can never and will never be repaid. The fix has been in for 100 years. It is the tool for enslaving nations. The socialist/communist take-over of the world absolutely requires this debt-money system, and the progress has been prolific. Will the nations of the world extricate themselves from this mess? Only if they know how it works so that they do not do it again...

Ayn Rand has a very valid point. Altruistic ideals have been the excuse for all matter of evil. Altruism is a rallying cry for collective action -- but how will the actions of the group be coordinated? Sacrificing oneself for the common good is classic altruism. It promotes a victim consciousness -- the common man being in need of 'salvation' from himself -- to be guided of course by an un-common man, a super man or demi-god who is all powerful yet needs the bended knee of the people.

Ayn Rand is absolutely right! The philosophy of altruism is the foundation of statism whether religious or secular. Compelled virtue is not virtue at all but slavery.

This is one of the reasons I think the world carries on without the dictates of our rulers -- the world is run by the People, while the 'leaders' claim the credit. The entirety of politics is about convincing the People they aren't responsible -- "you didn't build that."

I do believe we are in a constant process of creation; every act invites a response. What would I like that response to be? What is the question for which I am the answer? ;-)

!! ;-)

True for theocracies of all shapes, religious and secular. History proves that 'The Promise' is the tool of the ruling class -- the 'currency' of the world is now 'promises,' and we are expected to treat them as good as gold! ;-)

I suppose it is better to have principles, than to have none, even if they are 'wrong.' Using the moral high-ground to justify what would normally be considered a crime is classic political propaganda -- where do you think income taxes, property taxes, trade licensing, etc. came from? They are all violations of the free American citizen, but have been implemented in authoritarian fashion for 'the common good'. This is the ultimate 'offense' against the noble sovereign individual.

Right on! Equally applicable to theocracies everywhere, both religious and communistic. The religion of "progressivism" continues to retro-actively redefine common ground as 'oppression' in order to introduce new words to define the Marxist ideal as natural. "It asks of its disciples that they should inhibit natural kindness in favor of systematic hatred." Antifa comes to mind as well as every college riot due to a scheduled speaker who expresses an alternative opinion than the 'progressive' narrative. With all this talk about hate speech, why isn't all the vitriol thrown at non-Marxists considered hate speech? The hypocrisy stinks.

As always, the means determine the ends. Doing the right thing is both the means and the end. Of course there will be a response, and I pay attention to that response, as even I may be incorrect in my assessment of what is 'right.'

I.E. guilt? If there were no others to have an opinion, do I still have need of conscience? That's just putting on an act.

Laying up one's treasures where neither moth nor rust corrupt is true richness, true wealth, and the 'estate' a worthy inheritance.

And after a while, the liar even believes his own lies. Some have taken lying to an art -- the Clinton's come to mind. Lies, lies, lies.

Even an honest man can be honest about his having been dishonest. ;-)

Indeed, however, I am distrusting of someone with no apparent imperfections -- what is being hidden?