Source; Sent from a friend.......
“The Industrial Revolution, starting in 1770 in Britain, had little to do with its universities and nothing to do with its government…willpower, effort and imitative raised men above their circumstances…it is also important side note that before that Revolution more than half the children born, wealthy or poor, failed to reach the age of five. By 1830 more than 75% lived way beyond that age.” –Paul Johnson
The definition of democracy implies a government by informed discourse, meaning individual views can and do change in the process of decision making, based primarily on proof, fact, logic, and reason. So, let’s do a little.
Given the perspective of history, every American alive today is easily among the wealthiest 1% of people to have lived on earth. The poorest of the poor in America have luxuries unheard of to most kings of the past. Do you appreciate running water? Electric lights? Advanced medical care? And we haven't even pointed out the fact that most of our technology -- that the "poor" largely benefit from -- has been developed by <gasp!> wealthy corporations. Understood properly, the past productivity of the wealthy is the only reason such luxuries are available to the so-called poor today. America's "poor" are far wealthier than the middle classes of most other nations.
If anything hurts the poor of the world, it's American class warfare. "In our attempt to blame poverty on prejudice, we have taught the poor to be prejudiced against the basic values necessary to sustain a free and civil society.... We've taught them there are no real absolutes to the human condition -- except perhaps that the highest value in life is to acquire things." --Star Parker.
Wealth has no agency. What matters is how people behave. Wealth depends not just on available opportunities but also on the interests and abilities of individuals, not to mention random occasional luck. In the long run, America’s along with the world's poor are most effectively helped by the system that helped create wealth in the United States -- free markets, limited government, and just laws(1). Want to help the poor, support free trade. To rebel against the free market is, in reality, self-serving, self-contradictory hogwash. At best, it's incoherent; at worst, it's a malicious deception.
"The liberal led democratic Party’s coalition is frighteningly like the class structure of the European societies from which America diverged. They view the citizenry as a needy underclass sending respect and obedience up to them, the privileged elite. This elite, in turn, dribbles down bread and hospitals. Theirs is a system whose design is one where the population is relegated to a collection of needy souls dependent upon charity for the sustenance of their bodies, in symbiosis with elite of busybodies, who in turn are dependent upon giving charity for the salvation of their own souls. It's not progressive in the least. It's medieval (One reason why the liberal elite are so in love with Europe). Liberalism is co-dependency. America, by contrast, still has a large middle class that values independence over co-dependence. This leads to considerable frustration of America's liberals, who cannot even 'imagine' how anyone would not want their help." --Mac Johnson
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation
That explains a lot as to why liberal BIG-government economic stimulus policies do not feature any real fiscal multipliers. The bulk of their programs/policies consist of transfer payments to individuals and states, with no real and substantial cuts in regulation, spending or taxes that would produce real incentive effects to spur freedom and economic growth. In other words, for liberalism its all about confiscating and redistributing wealth from those who earned it--the most productive group, and the job-creators in America--and giving it to those who didn’t, the least productive groups, mostly those who subsist on the state---including public officials. That does not constitute "looking out for one another" and is most decidedly not "what's right."
The democrat Party’s adherents, refusing to critically assess their ideology and its consequences, instead look for someone or something to blame for its own failings. Hence their dependence on what can be described as created blame-hate, which animates their mythological-based hate for any fact, logic, reasoning or person that disagrees with them. Their mainstream ideological generators, such as the media, the democratic Party leadership or Hollywood elites, fuel that venom. They are ready to believe just about anything suggestive of conspiracy, greed, deceit and machinated unfairness, producing a consuming delirium known as the Chomsky-Krugman Syndrome. That syndrome basically is an unwillingness to see the world as it really is, and to be aware of and understand the lessons humanity has acquired through time.
But then liberalism basically rejects give-and-take political discussion. Instead the liberal position is typically posed and defended in the language of feelings or some fuzzily defined rights. Either way, there is nothing much to their debate—their feelings are personal or the rights ill-defined and relative, both of which are beyond the reality-check reach of intellectually sound analysis which consists of argumentation by the rules of logic and honest majority decision making. liberalism’s opinions reflect a body of remarkably dogmatic thought that leaves little room for what they so strongly give a lot of rhetoric claims to, sound critical analysis--let alone dissent or new ideas. They are ever more isolated from facts, logic and reason, let alone the thoughts concerns and desires of their fellow Americans.
In essence, as Paul Kengor states: "Progressivism is nothing more than moral relativism at the political level. For them, Truth is never constant, with no fixed starting point, whether (theologically) in Sacred Scripture or (politically) in sacred political documents like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Truth is determined not by an absolute authority but by the individual – or rather, progressive individuals en masse -- who are always marching and ever-advancing toward evolving truths revealed somewhere down the road."
All of which supports what George Will has observed, that:"...the distilled essence of contemporary liberalism, enjoys imposing its will--about abortion, racial preferences, capital punishment, tobacco, firearms, etc.—primarily through litigation rather than legislation. Liberalism's fondness for judicial fiat rather than democratic decision-making explains the entwinement of the democratic Party and trial lawyers and their love for the concept of a living (read that as pliable) Constitution. These things will continue until these people are gone."
(1). “Charitable efforts are vital expression of human solidarity that, when carried out wisely, play a crucial role in relieving human suffering. But they are not the way people escape poverty. The normal way is through enterprise and free-markets—through ordinary, everyday business…Applying our intelligence as well as our sympathy is actually the most loving thing we can do for the poor”---Rev Robert Sirico
Comments