Friday, March 27, 2009

the dangers of idealism, ideologies -- explained by a laissez faire capitalist

Before I get into the depressing topic, I would like to mention the reason why I defend my free market capitalist stance. It works like gravity, you can fly or ride a bike when you work with it. If you attempt to defy gravity, you will fall. As in other systems, government control is being called out. But these systems of bigger government ignore the fallacy of human nature, and the nature of narcissism and sociopaths.

Which brings us to the reason why free market capitalism works and the most important rhetorical question.

Who do you trust most with your money and affairs?

Do you trust the government?
How about a special interest whoring politician?
How about a Bush? Any Bush, Neil Bush (indicted for crimes in the S&L Scandal). Or Bush Sr (the president at the end of the S&L Scandal). Or what about Dubya, the manipulator of the great sequel of the S&L Scandal?

A NAFTA signing Bill Clinton?
How about derelgulating Phil Gramm?
Would you trust bailout bank pimps such as Paulson or Geithner?
How about a Jr. Senator from Illinois with no prior fiscal management or business experience?
Do any of these people have your own or their own best interest at heart?

Or would you trust yourself to be the most responsible with your own affairs?

Again, this all retorts back to the essense of human nature (and when I say "human" I mean faulted), and how do to work efficiently around with it.

Ideologies are irrelevant because absolutes are almost impossible.

These questions come up in light of the recent economic turmoil and the possibility of nationalizing our banks/financial sector/country in general. And I'm motivated to say these things in light of the misinformation broadcasted throughout the mainstream about the issue.

The likes of Naomi Klein seem to be or promote ignorance on the topic. She seems to be reactive (vs. projecting) in her protest so I can give her the benefit of a doubt that she has good intentions. However the details are that important and I hope somehow that people will or already are familiar with it.

Many accuse Ameirca's capitalism to be a violent one. Note, every war in history has it's roots in economics. When nothing makes sense, always follow the money. The main combats throughout the world have been fought between systems built on ideologies or governments with roots in a specific type of bartering system.
Societies throughout history have always fought eachother over something of value, be it land or even taxation (or oppression by the government resulting in poverty and starvation). I beg to argue that the violence in America is a result of a problem, not the system and the violence by America at times were committed in either defense of a different government (ie. communism- see Vietnam or Korean Wars) or for imperialistic purposes.

I personally find it baffling that communists and socialist sympathizers might call themselves "compassionates" or "liberals" would denounce capitalism when Communism and extreme forms of socialism (facism) have led to democides that outnumber the casualties in any war fought in American history. Communist Manifesto does mention force as a necessary means of control. Mao is one fine example. He was a poverty pimp, yet he pulled a nice bait and switch and murdered 35 million of his own people. I want to pull up two sources to cite my proof.


"Mass-murderer Pol Pot was run to ground this week in the remote jungle of northern Cambodia. Leader of the notorious Khmer Rouge, Pot ordered the killing of at least one million `class enemies' in Cambodia's Killing Fields.
Pot is a monster, and deserves to be buried alive, like many of his victims. This marxist madman reminds us of an amazing, but little-know fact: more people have been killed in the 20th Century by their own governments than by all wars combined.

About 25 million soldiers died in World Wars I and II. Another 12 million were killed in this century's other wars and revolutions, a total of 37 million dead.

Under Lenin and Stalin, the Soviet government became the greatest mass-murderer in history. Lenin's collectivization and purges of 1921-1922 caused 4 million deaths. In 1932, Stalin ordered Ukraine starved to enforce collectivization and crush Ukrainian nationalism. At least 8 million Ukrainians were murdered. Others resorted to cannibalism.
From 1917 to Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union, worshipped by leftists around the world as the acme of human political accomplishment, shot, tortured, beat, froze or starved to death at least 40 million of its people. Some Russian historians claim the true figure is even higher. In an ugly spasm of deja-vu, Russian troops slaughtered 80,000 Chechen civilians over the past two years.

In China. Great Helmsman Mao Zedong had 2 million `class enemies' shot when the communists took power. Another million Tibetans and Turkestani Muslims were `liquidated.' from 1950-1975. During Mao's crazy Great Leap Forward, in which China's farmers were collectivized en masse, an estimated 30 million or more people starved to death. Another two million are said to have been died in Mao's Cultural Revolution. Total: 35 million dead.

Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 12 million civilians, half of them Jews. The Nazis exterminated people because of race; the communists because of class or nationality. Hitler killed with gas; Stalin with bullets, cold, and hunger.
Some two million German civilians were killed in 1945, and at least 200,000 died in communist concentration camps from 1945-1953. The victories Allies handed back 2 million anti-communist Soviet citizens to Stalin in 1945: he had half shot, and the rest sent to Arctic death camps.

During World War I, the Ottoman Empire slaughtered or starved up to 2 million Armenians, the first great genocide of the new century.

In the early 1960's, 600,000 ethnic Chinese were massacred in Indonesia by government-encouraged mobs and soldiers.

During the Marcos era in the Philippines, 75,000 Muslims were massacred by government paramilitary gangs.

In 1971, Pakistani troops killed tens of thousands of Bengalis in former East Pakistan. Indian security forces and police have massacred great numbers of tribesmen in border regions, and many civilians in Kashmir and Punjab.

In the 1980's, Ethiopia's marxist regime denied seeds to `capitalist' farmers, causing a million people to starve to death.

A half-century of tribal massacres between Hutu and Tutsi culminated in the recent slaughter of half a million Tutsi civilians by Rwanda's Hutu government.

Serbia's nazi-nationalist regime conducted the massacre of 200,000 Muslim civilians in Bosnia.

There are many other examples. But just the figures cited above amount to almost 100 million deaths this century - deaths that were not caused by war or revolution, but by the conscious decision of tyrants, politicians, or bureaucrats to murder great numbers of their own people for reasons of ideology, religion, race or land.
Compare: 100 million people murdered by governments this century; 75% by communist regimes - to about 38 million killed in all wars and conflicts.

So let Cambodia's by now almost forgotten Pol Pot remind us that big governments, particularly those driven by ideology and idealism, have been a greater menace than big armies, heavy armaments, - even nuclear weapons.

In fact, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge killed five times more civilians than did atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

2. China's Bloody Century By R.J. Rummel
"1. Introduction and Overview [China's Bloody Century]

2. 105,000 Victims: Dynastic and Republican China
3. 632,000 Victims: Warlord China
4. 2,724,000 Victims: The Nationalist Period
5. 10,216,000 Victims: The Sino-Japanese War
6. 3,949,000 Victims: Japanese Mass Murder in China
7. 4,968,000 Victims: The Civil War
8. The People's Republic of China: Overview
9. 8,427,000 Victims: The Totalization Period
10.7,474,000 Victims: Collectivization and "The Great Leap Forward"
11. 10,729,000 Victims: The Great Famine and Retrenchment Period
12. 7,731,000 Victims: The "Cultural Revolution"
13. 874,000 Victims: Liberalization..."

Today, we have another issue regarding gun control and the second amendment. I can vouch and say that most homicides in America are committed with knives. The Census Bureau has the 411 on that.

The second amendment states that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This can be interpreted in many ways, but the point is that the people have a right to defend ourselves.

an elaboration would move to the fourth amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Guns anymore seem to be symbolic of self defense. Today's society is becoming centered on intellegence and technology. Nobody is bombarding your home with guns for robberies. Well there are a few, and in self defense I understand why people would prefer to own a gun. I do not, but everyone I know does lock their doors when they're at home and often have a security alarms placed in their home, their businesses or on their car.

As represented by the recent economic crisis, including the Bernie Madoff scandal theft is occuring through more sophisticated matters. The mafia isn't showing up at anyone's home with guns. They're robbing people in a white collar fashion with sophisticated heists with the help of our legislators. Legislations have been enacted (then removed, thanks Gramm!) as a defense. Even with laywers, it's costly and often inefficient. Gun sales have recently gone through the roof on the eve of Obama's inauguration. Unfortunately, guns may not be the adequate measure of protection.

Which brings the topic to the next mystery. How can this subprime crisis be contained? Right now Geithner and Congress seem to add fuel to the fire by tossing money at CEO's. They're the fox guarding the henhouse. The shareholders should be the defendants, as they have direct influence over the affairs of the banks. Unfortunately, the taxpayers are forced to own stake in these companies without ever seeing a proxy. We will never get to vote out a CEO or take these banks to court like shareholders do (remember Enron?). Our "representatives" want our money without a say in how the matter is resolved. The people might have to take this on, again it's always the people (not the politicians) who do great things for our country.

No comments:

Post a Comment