Otto Eduard Leopold, Prince of Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg (1 April 1815 – 30 July 1898), better known as Otto von Bismarck, is credited with being the father of socialism, the modern-day welfare state. He said, “My idea was to bribe the working classes, or shall I say, to win them over, to regard the state as a social institution existing for their sake and interested in their welfare.” Politicians were quick to see the power and simplicity of Bismarck’s concept. Convincing the public that government existed for their sake and their welfare enabled politicians to expand into areas previously considered off-limits. The US, constrained by its Constitution and a predisposition toward liberty, held out longer than Europe, but tradition and law were eventually brushed aside and/or ignored.
Bismarck’s bribery was the model that altered the nature of politics. Politicians loved buying votes, and the populations loved the bribery myth. After generations of propagandizing Statism, the goodness of government, intervention as a necessary means to equity and prosperity, and the need to invade and manage virtually every aspect of our lives, a majority of voters believe the myth. Liberals (Progressives as they now like to be called) in the US, despite deliberate distortion of the Founders’ original intent, used the “general welfare” clause in the preamble to the US Constitution as justification for a social welfare state.
Bribery, by way of an expanding welfare state, has been the predominant political strategy. Economies are being destroyed by Socialism as practiced via the welfare state. The euphemisms of Socialism and welfare state also provide convenient cover for what amounts to political enrichment and job security. The US has now run out of both time and money. The malignancy of Socialism nears its ugly end, the bill has come due. As Margaret Thatcher said, “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Socialism, and the welfare state, depends upon voters believing these three myths:
- Prosperity is available without effort
- Government creates prosperity
- Government will take care of its people
Politicians were able to support this myth only with “other people’s money,” but it is now finally becoming apparent to many that none of these premises are true.
This welfare state/bribery myth is injuring the US (and world) economy by removing money from the economy by:
- obscene levels of taxation
- destroying the seed capital provided by previous generations
- borrowing funds that were never intended to be paid back
Despite propaganda from the MSM and the Obama administration, government produces nothing, nor has it ever produced anything. Government depends upon a thriving private sector to play sustain the welfare state myth and continue the illusion that the government is the source of prosperity. The fraud cannot go on much longer because governments have crippled private enterprise via onerous rules, regulations, and taxes. Government was able to hide the problem by spending more than it took in. Governments around the world have reached the point where spending levels can no longer be sustained via tax revenues or bond sales to foreign countries. The secret of Socialism and the social welfare state has become apparent – it was never anything more than a political gimmick to gain or retain office and power. As a result, the world faces sovereign debt defaults, financial system collapse, civil unrest, and a Depression that will make the 1930s look mild in comparison.
But that’s just my opinion.
SW
hi,
good, I understand what you mean,I agree that It’s not right to judge a NATION base on one story,
that is right, and in the cyber space there is many stories some incredible, and it is hard to separate the truth, from the lies, because they are both learned in a way to spread it as truth are so realistic,
some are propaganda aim at young so they become easy to swallow on young because they are unaware of which is lies, and not only the young get caught by it either when the lies are disseminated into other sentences by some with the intent to influence the other to believe the lies and subject itself to live by it
and follow the one who lie, what come to my mind, is the one who allow the liar to attach a belt on his waist
and follow the instruction to go and pull the trigger
to destroy other humans he never known before,
having being told he will get an afterlife immense pleasure
that is the ultimate of confidence toward lying people, un-believeble to comprehend and yet it is happening more often than ever.
bye
SW
DID WE LOST YOU SOMEWHERE?
OR DID YOU LOST US SOMEWHERE?
JUST RAN INTO YOU PREVIOUS COMMENTS STILL
VERY INTERESTING TO READ, IT’S 3 PM HERE, YOU MIGHT BE DRINKING YOUR
MILCHKAFFEE at this time which is not your time,
I was wondering who do you think is doing the right thing in SYRIA,
TWO conflicting thoughts come to mind, the LEADER trying to contain the revolt by force which look like LIBYA REVOLT AND EGYPT AND OTHER WHICH KILLED SO MANY AND DID NOT BRING THEIR PEACEFUL LIVES AS THEY WHERE TOLD AS A PROMISE OF SETTING THEM FREE,
OR THE REVOLT THEMSELVES WHO WHERE TOLD THE SAME PROMISES OF FREEDOM AND PEACEFUL LIVES,
BEST TO YOU
In answer to the question about Syria, my response is based on the concept of “freedom.” I do not believe that the Muslim world is capable of acting on the basis on individual freedom as yet. Historically the Christian world in Europe went through some centuries of soul searching to move from the unified church-state complex to some kind of separation as we see today, and the United States took some decades to move from slavery to freedom, as but two examples in a larger discussion. I conclude that Islam — not individual Muslims — is fragmenting into modern and ancient themes, and we are only in the beginning of this today. Therefore one sees in Egypt, as an example, the calls for sharia from the Muslim Brotherhood alongside calls for indivudal freedoms. One sees in Saudi Arabia the official call to destroy Christian churches in the “umma.” In Iran, the political call today is the old, repeated “death to Jews” cant of so many generations in the past. In each of these I see a panicked Islam trying to hold onto ancient forms in world fast changing and rushing into modernity and the pervasive notion of “human rights.” When human rights are alleged to be equal for all, then Islam is in deep trouble for it cannot claim greater rights for itself over others. In Syria, the Baath socialists — yes the party was formed with socialism as its economic basis — are in a fight for their life against two forces, one being modernity which breeds some notions of freedom, and another which seeks to gain political power for its own new leaders, as in the Muslim Brotherhood. Neither side is an attractive alternative, so the question becomes one of RealPolitick as much as of ethics. I personally would supply neither, fund neither, and let the outcome be as it will be. Islam’s fracturing will not be swayed by the West, and the West can only become a greater enemy to it by choosing sides. The Arab Spring is no spring, but is fast proving itself a revolution of violent people willing to lash out against non-Muslims as the Grand Mufti of Saudia Arabia has shown clearly. Muslim lands have seen a withering of Jewish and christian populations, and in Iraq only in the last months churches have been burned. In Africa, one sees radical Muslims burning Christian churches as well. This is a worldwide theme, not a Syrian one. Radical Islam is a reaction to the onrush of modernity and the pervading sense of “human rights” moving through news as through social media as through the UN’s various calls for “human rights.” I think the large story is that Islam is fracturing greatly now, the old forms of royal families — as is Jordan’s and Saudi Arabia’s — and family dominance — as is the Assad regime, much like the North Koreans — are under threat from within. This is wonderful, when judged from the simple perspective of freedom alone. Individual freedom threatens the fists of governments, whether these were the royal family governments of old Europe, the National Socialists, the Soviet and Sino Socialists, and the various forms of thuggish Muslim governments. It is freedom which is spreading, and the violence we see is not a result of freedom spreading, but of those who would continue to enslave men. Syria will sort itself out, as armaments are moving without the public actions of Western nations. The long view is that corrupt, autocratic regimes will topple, or be toppled. Rest assured the long arch of history tells this tale. But as with the history of the bloody French revolution which led to an emporer in short order, or the early Russian revolution which led to Soviet Communism, the revolution in Syria is in an early stage. We need do little, except wait. Both the French empire which followed that revolution and the Bolsheviks becoming the USSR, we now know that these failed. Freedom works. It is efficient, patient, pervasive and spreading each year. Support freedom in all things, use it as a concept to examine political trends and it will always predict the outcome long term, and clarify the issues short term. Freedom is freedom from — the preposition is crucial — too heavy-handed a government’s authority. Small governments work well; big governments fail. The worldwide and radical revolution is not for “one world government,” but rather for individuality and freedom from government. This is as true in Germany as in Syria as in the United States, and in each and every other country there are those who would take your freedom away. Back to Syria, I wager Assad will fail and fall. It is only a matter of time. Best wishes.
SW
SUPER, and I like your many points,
so FREEDOM COME AT A COST OF SO MANY LIVES DOS’ NT IT?
so many on the front row FOR FREEDOM ,and so many in the back row FOR FREEDOM, those who started it peacefully got killed, they where promised freedom
those who joined later to add up the number of protesters got killed, those who joined
with small weapons got killed, those from surrounded countries trained to kill joined and got killed,
then is unleached the beast of atrocity and torture to desperate end the revolt, followed by effort and separation of the military changing camp joining the revolt as it intensify killing more people on both sides, LIBYA ON A BIGGER SCALE, now it seem that the beast is still there killing, but fewer are left to fight, leaving the revolt to real fighters like the arab spring brotherhood who come to take over the country trying to promise freedom and peace to those who stayed loyal from the beginning to the PRESIDENT , I believe this is now where they are, agonizing on both sides in a land stain with blood.
why would the president leave now, he has one last fight to wage, which is the one to kill him
or kill the BEAST FROM THE BROTHERHOOD OF ARAB SPRING, AND THE WORLD TOOK SIDES
BETTING ON THE OUTCOMES, AND THE UN TOOK SIDES LATE TOO LATE SHOWING THEIR INEFICIENCY TO HELP ANY THING BUT TRYING TO PUSH THE ARAB SPRING TO FINISH THE JOB THEY SEE AS THE RIGHT END TO COME, AND WE CAN SEE WHAT MISERY WILL COME NEXT,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR VIEWS ON THAT HUMAN EVENT WHICH HAS CAPTURE THE ATTENTION OF A WORLD UNWILLING TO JOIN IN, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THE END,
BYE
SW
hi, I must correct my error on the time on the first comment,
it was not 3 pm , it was 3 am, in case you had calculate the time with you.res
good day, 39 f. today, yesterday 76 f, even MOTHER NATURE IS CONFUSE,
BYE
@SW: SW, I would only say that the US wouldn’t have been able to move away from slavery had not our Declaration of Independence and Constitution existed, first. It is a bit of a misnomer to say that we moved away from slavery and into freedom. Our Founding Fathers all were against slavery, even though some held slaves. They wished to abolish it, but knew that they had to establish the country first and lay the foundation for slaves to become free men.
As awful as it might sound, they didn’t want perfection to be the enemy of good.
Dear “anticsrocks,” thank you for the clarification. You are correct that moving away from slavery was a wrenching experience for the United States. It is important to remember this is a worldwide phenomenon, and there exists slavery today within the Muslim world. Additionally, after the time in which the political Left formulated the argument of the “wage slave,” we see that there is in fact a “debt slave” having been conjured up by governments and their profligate spending through borrowing. I see many of the modern news themes as extensions of historical arches, many not complete. Slavery is such a theme, in many ways. The original focus of this blog thread was the argument that socialism robs the productive to support the non-productive. The graphic at the top illustrates this. Slavery is a form of robbery in which an individual’s productivity is stolen from them. The debt crisis in Greece today, as well as other European states and too in American states, comes from that graphic. Borrowed from tomorrow to bribe political loyalty, tomorrow is arrived earlier than expected. It demands repayment, but as in the case of the Greek bonds, someone loses. The bond holders there lost seventy percent; that is outright theft perpetrated by government. Thus one can clearly state that governance which allows one form of slavery would easily tolerate another. One can also clearly state that a free people would push back against such governance, whether it be an individual slave owner or a nation. I think politics around the world is well represented by the graphic which began this blog. Demanding from the productive more than they are willing to offer to a collective, the collective extracts by force of arms or force of law. What happens then is well known, as the productive slow down their work. Economies wither when governments confiscate from the productive so much that the productive decide to tend to themselves. This is what I see happening across much of Europe, and perhaps in the United States as well. I think capital walks away, whether it be investments or human capital. When the slave traders come to call, we want not to be at home, correct?
@SW: Just got home from work, SW. I will comment later today, after I get some shut eye.