Property, according to Oscar Wilde has such dreary duties that it constitutes and endless bore. It is unbearable and prevents the full flowering of individualism. Property then, in the interest of the rich said Wilde, must be gotten rid of. Lenin also said something to the effect that freedom as know it was little more than a bourgeois prejudice. Listening to Obama’s State of the Union address had some disquieting resemblances to 1930′s style British Fabianism. Although Obama said the right kinds of things, one gets the impression of some trigger happy liberal populism moving inexorably into the private sphere.
After all, why let a good economic crisis go to waste? Exactly the opportune moment to craft some utopian social engineering projects. Does the pioneer spirit still exist? The rugged individual? America, in spite of all the terrible miscalculations and errors its made,is, the greatest most beneficent,most open, inclusive, and grandest culture in world history. Is a sharp left turn, a dead man’s curve, a road to Hell paved with good intentions? State Socialism collapses upon itself inevitably. Is Obama teasing about prodding the global industrial plutocracy into the stinking hole the commies fell into? Can what’s left of the pioneer spirit get us back to a Jeffersonian model of individuals and small business interacting with one another out of choice,in addition to necessity tempered with community responsibility?
Wilde: The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.
Alexis de Tocqueville’s trip to the United States in the early 1830′s led him to write the famous 1835 essay entitled Democracy in America. At about the same time Thoreau was skimming stones on Walden Pond. In it he warned of the dangers of a nurturing government extending its arm over the whole community, and he contemplated presciently how “a democratic state of society, similar to that of the Americans, might offer singular facilities for the establishment of despotism”. Read More:http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/what-sort-despotism-democratic-nations-have-fear
The problem with the welfare based society is they are extremely difficult to dismantle in the face of change. They become structurally rigid and often dysfunctional depots of despotism and paper milling. Even advanced a relatively prosperous countries like Canada will not be able to sustain their model. The social solidarity thesis is in direct juxtaposition to the creative destruction model of free enterprise. Although Greece and Portugal are economic backwaters, the comparison to entitlement countries is not a spurious one.
From Michael Ferguson . Read More:http://thefuture101abstracts.blogspot.com/
In the State of the Union, President Obama said, “I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.” Notice the insertion of ‘better’.
What this means is even if ‘people’ are doing something adequately themselves and, perhaps, would prefer to continue to do it themselves, because government can do it BETTER they can commandeer it. In fact, if you read that carefully, the burden of proof is upon the people. If government can do it just as well, or asserts that it can, then the inference is that the people cannot do it better and the government, by this principle, can do it. And, of course, better can be a slippery term. One person’s ‘better’ may not be mine or yours. …