I often wondered why socialists always talk about tolerance and nearly always refuse to accept moral absolutes. I found they only accept absolutes with respect to the veracity of their ideological agendas but all other ‘claims’ to truth are only contingent on conjecture fused with caveman roars. This moral sleight of hand may confuse some Canadians, but surely not the reflective thinker.
The basic understanding that undergirds a free market position is quite simple. The human was designed and built to function a certain way. We were built to serve people. When a guest comes over, we don’t have to think and try really hard to get up and be polite. We do it automatically and naturally. We were built to solve problems. We solve puzzles at 2 years and at 4 we add. At age 10 we mow lawns for $5, all the while solving problems while in school. Entering the workforce, we get paid to serve or solve problems, almost all the time. Furthermore, we are designed to create. Regardless if we take plain lego blocks and build a planet or if we are innovating something new for the market place, creating is a significant part of who we are and what we do...after all, we came into existence by our parents creating! We hold this without apology and see no need to play the ‘relativisim’ game.
We are built to take ownership when solving problems, serving and creating and this is good. Privately owning this process often results in profit, which is also good.
Profit is the friend of the diligent, open minded and responsibility taking individual.
(Losses are our friend too; it’s a breeding ground for learning, feedback and improvement.)Here’s the tricky part for the socialist: we were built to have dominion over our area of responsibility. Private ownership is our claim to that which is our responsibility. We own the problem. We own our attitude behind serving. We own the connections our minds make to create something beautiful and helpful. This is owned by us, for better or worse. Our choices matter and just as we teach our 3 year olds, there are consequences to choices. Therefore choose well and we will love you no matter what. Owning that which is our responsibility is beautiful and good. It is in line with how we were designed as people.
The socialist attacks how we are created and seeks to manipulate our imputed facets of design through re-constructing a bastardized shadow of our former self.The socialist argues:
“The problem is not ‘your’ responsibility to solve, it’s ‘ours’ to solve.”
“Your responsibility to your actions and attitudes is overridden by your ‘rights’ to be looked after by the state.”“Consequences to poor choices are not your fault, it’s our fault, therefore a solution is your right…and it’s cool, we will pick up the tab.”
“You ought not to keep the reward to that which you thought you owned, for you do not own the solution to the problem: the government does, since it’s not ‘your’ problem, but ours.”“We the government are not nearly as accountable to serve others as we are righteously indignant of those profiteers who ought to serve us.”
“The profiteer (“evil banks”, “big corporations” in NDP world) distances herself from the rest of us by insulting the ‘together we stand’ mantra by using profits to isolate her from our care, therefore our solution is simple: tax like mad.”
“Profit is the enemy of togetherness, so we the government will take it and spread it out.”
In the socialist world, the person does not ‘own’ their actions with respect to how they are created, so a ‘profit crushed society’ is required. Yep, 48% +++ tax bracket is crushing.Despite what you are fed, the context of serving, solving problems and creating is not a ‘government owned and distributed’ agenda. Consider the poorest of the poor in Canada. They don’t need more truncating of their given attributes (ownership of serving, solving and creating). Many are desperate to serve, solve and create. To do this, give them the private sector, not the public sector. Compassion must direct people to meet and connect with the poorest of the poor in Canada: not governments "lovingly" stripping the poor of their humanity, ironically in the name of humanity.
Annihilate the socialist’s surface songs of love and expose the root of their agenda and I am confident you too can see how destructive a government planned economy is to the human condition: however well intended.It is humane to respect an individual’s sets of choices (even if it leads to poor outcomes) and empower them to change their attitudes through loving on them. If this is done through the private sector, then the compassion is mated with ownership of solutions and this is in line with how we are created: therefore we can expect to see good things. Good things happen when they function according to their design. People included! It is inhumane when the socialist squad parachutes in, cites 'compassion' and partners it with government 'solutions' then strips the individual of their imputed rights of ownership turning those in need into state-puffed-marshmallows. The government solution is not in line with how we are created therefore the method is unacceptable as it perpetuates what is clearly broken: a non-inspired state of failing to own choices pertaining to serving, solving and creating.
 |
| The terror of government forced compassion: puffed up and a changed state. |
Socialists can’t inspire ownership for choices in others when they dictate shared ownership of choices as a core tenant. The socialist will give the poor in Canada a chance, only when they get the heck out of the way. Paving the handout road with good intentions does not make the socialist cause noble, just or right. It is deceptive to many, but surely not you…the reflective thinker.
Reality is, humans are hard-wired for 'profit'. For what is profit but an excess of income over expense. At a very basic level, that of the hunter-gatherer, the expenditure of time and energy needed to obtain food needed to yield - at the minimum - enough food to replace the energy expended in pursuit of said food as well as allowing a person to keep up his/her normal activities. Once there were children, then the 'profit' had to be high enough that the children can also be fed.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same with farmers: the spring and summer's work had better yield enough food to keep them going and then have a good surplus to carry them through to the next season.
In today's society, we all are trying to turn a profit in our daily work: make enough to feed, clothe, and house ourselves and our families, and then have some left over for non-essentials.
Socialists don't get that; even though they do practice it on a personal level. It's how they think they should get the wherewithall to sustain themselves that puts them on a collision course with 'capitalists'.
profit is extra money. it is what motivates a person to take risk in a venture. rather than taking a wage as an employee one may take a loan or a partner in order to create a business in hopes that it will be more rewarding. the reward as far as shrewd businesspersons are concerned, is profit. profit is determined by the practices of the owner of said business. under no circumstance can the government prevent profit from coming about. what can prevent it is bad business practice. bad business can also create unsuitable working conditions, and can prey upon desperate individuals. ownership of said business is a responsibility only as long as the owner is held accountable by a body of government of some kind. elsewise responsibility is only viewed as responsibility to consumers. if responsibility lies only in the perception of consumers, and consumers are generally uninformed and or deceived by bad business practice, then the responsibility lies in the choices of the consumer and not upon the owner. thus a consumer who is lied to making a bad choice by spending money on an unethical product unknowingly is taking responsibility for a bad business. a business owner without regulation is unaccountable.
ReplyDeleteunless it is to be believed that owners can be held accountable to themselces or to god, then the population must get involved through regulatory bodies. in my opinion there is no exception to this rule. if tax money is being taken at all from the population to pay for said regulatory bodies ( even if for other things that are not a part of this argument) then i support it and i think that if anyone shiuld be paying the lion's share of the taxes. it should be the owners of said businesses.
your argument for private ownership is decent only assuming people are all good.you can own your actions but you can also own the people you are screwing over. private ownership equals leverage, and no matter what you might think, people who are leveraged make bad decisions because there arent any good ones left. compassion is a nice ideal but it is far from the norm. socialists understand way better than you, i believe.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it unbelievable that after the fall of communism two decades ago there are now some who want a return to a planned economy and an end to private ownership of property? I yearn for the days when one would stand in line for two hours for a Pepsi-like cola and spend three years salary to buy a car designed in Italy 30 years before!
ReplyDelete