Liberal Lecture Part 2
If you read to the end of Part 1, you know I attached & changed a label. You learned the origin of the term “Progressive Movement”. And now, to a little discussion on economics. According to economist F. A. Hayek “If socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists”. Keep in mind that the original point of agreement is that “There certainly is corruption in our government at all levels due to greed.” Green energy is at the heart of that greed, just follow the money trails (plural) of Solyndra.
But, I really think I’m done talking about an anthropogenic hoax. Let’s see what this progressive has to say about capitalism and come out swinging.
The pic is really what this progressive thinks about capitalism. Of course, by being a progressive he chooses to remain in the singular perspective. Let’s examine this from a capitalist and maybe even a conservative perspective.
- “Before we discuss destroying the competition”, …
If you work for a company that runs itself that well, has a product or service that good, or is ahead of the competitive curve in its field, you are working for a company that is headed for real trouble. From a progressive perspective your company is throwing things out of balance or not equal with its competitors. When the company becomes the best, it is taken to court and found to be in violation of anti-trust laws. (for you progressives that don’t know economics, that would be a monopoly) It must then be brought down to the level of mediocrity. Anyone recall a company like that? This happened to one of the most innovative and forward thinking companies in the world. Our own anti-trust laws literally stunted our technological growth. So, what have you heard from Microsoft lately? It will happen again with others. It’s part of the human condition and it’s called ambition NOT greed.
- …” screwing our customers,” …
In a free market a business will not survive with this type of philosophy. But, in the market of crony capitalism or corrupt government, a business can have this attitude and play the victim card, take no responsibility, and go to the government for a bail out. Now this is troubling because citizens on both sides of the aisle, for the most part, are against bail outs. Unfortunately, the politicians that represent us (supposedly) approve the bail outs with our money. This is where liberals (I do include some Republicans as liberal) waste no time in imposing their will in the form of regulations. I say if businesses want to screw their customers, let them and let the free market take care of it.
- …”and laughing all the way to the bank,” …
I see this as an accomplishment of making the goals and receiving the incentives connected to those goals. This progressive would see this as income inequality and demand compensation be equal, since the work may have been equal. One tiny problem, the results may not have been equal. Incentives, this is a tactic of the strategy within capitalism and unfortunately for progressive’s, profit is involved and results are expected.
- …” let’s begin this meeting with a prayer.”
A-MEN! Ok, not so fast. Does the government contract stipulate that a prayer would be a violation of the separation of church & state?
Now that a cartoon has been dissected, let’s see some progressive thoughts, this time I started a premise to separate the capitalist from the progressive or worse. I started with an introduction of credibility. Mainly the economists and sociologists that I have studied, read, or written about, I listed: 
Adam Smith, Jean Rousseau, Alexis de Tocqueville, David Hume, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, F.A. Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, and others including the two books by Obama.
Hey, I have my values and they are conservative and capitalistic. I am fascinatingly curious as to why Americans are turning to a system that has been proven theoretically, historically, and in actuality to be a failure— socialism.
The struggle between free market and government control is one that would make Karl Marx proud. According to Marx, society only grows when there is conflict. The following dialogue is almost laughable as it sounds like the question of which came first the chicken or the egg. I started with a counter to his
…“problems with capitalism with greed and exploitation taking over.”
“That’s the non-existent problem of capitalism.” Capitalism was created to amass wealth and end greed and exploitation; it is the economic basis for helping yourself and your fellow man. Before capitalism you got rich by stealing and plundering from your neighbors. When we allow or promote the force of gov’t to control the free market, we have truly lost faith in our fellow man.”
What comes next from the progressive mind is very convincing as to why this country is on the event horizon of a Coriolis effect. (for you progressive scientists, that means “circling the drain”)
Enjoy:
“I submit that “faith in our fellow man” was lost”
“Enter higher level of thinking from humans like Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, MLK, Jimmy Carter (yes Jimmy Carter…a truly great human being) and many more.”
“I believe Jesus WAS a socialist / progressive liberal / Democratic Socialist.)…”
STOP
Oh now wait just a damn minute. Jesus, a socialist? What? After booing God out of the 2012 DNC……
Ok, I’ll run with it. Well, knowing more than my fair share of what socialism is, there just isn’t much in common between Christianity and socialism. According to Karl Marx,
To Marx, this means that religious believers were deluded junkies using religion to ease the pain of their existence. The point comes down to “what are you wanting to change” According to the 2012 DNC, our belief in God has to be questioned and eliminated. How about another approach—acknowledge that individuals suffer because of government intervention of the free market.
It’s true that both sides of the aisle like to cherry pick 
their passages from the Bible to complete their narrative, Jesus did not appear here to elevate our earthly status, but to redeem mankind. Even though all value is perceived, Jesus perceived the value of everlasting life for mankind to equal his physical life on earth and that’s the exchange he made. That is the ultimate capitalist!
I’m not going to even speculate on what a socialist Jesus would do with terms like shared sacrifice. I think my point is proven and above reproach.
But, here is one of my cherry picked passages, an excerpt from Luke 22:36 “….and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Wow capitalism and 2nd Amendment all in 1/2 a verse.
But, let’s get to the second part.
…”Honesty and integrity are lost ideals in business and government, yet remain the beacons society follows and seeks.”
Honesty and integrity are NOT lost ideals in business and government. Unfortunately, this validated his lead submission and he has no faith in his fellow man or seemingly anyone else. He must not know that government and business are a part of society. If he did, he would never vote Democrat. But, as a progressive he really does not believe that himself.
“Humans were ripping each other off from the beginning. Some higher thinking human; one that thought beyond them self, said, “This needs to stop!” and government of laws or rules was invented.”
Straight from the progressive, government was created to regulate commerce. The chicken/egg paradox. Which came first government or capitalism. I think governments were plundering each other’s countries before capitalism.
…” you seem to have a disdain for government, and grasp at business or capitalism as the righteous solution to humanities quest in life”
Here it is, this was referenced in Part 1. Yep, I do have a disdain for government, especially when it’s overgrown, over-reaching, and corrupt. I don’t “grasp at capitalism as the righteous solution to humanities quest in life” — I embrace it. I have faith in my fellow man where capitalism is productive and provides. What does government produce? Nothing. This is what progressives have faith in, a collective bureaucracy that produces nothing, but has the power to tell you how to live by restricting, regulating, and controlling.
Actual statement I made: “Capitalism was created to amass wealth and end greed and exploitation; it is the economic basis for helping yourself and your fellow man”
“I believe your statement is a prime example of a oxymoron or cognitive dissonance”
Don’t you know I fell on the floor L M A O. While I’m confident he knows the meaning of cognitive dissonance, I’m quite sure he doesn’t know how to use it. I am finding out how inept this progressive is in certain disciplines, such as economics.
That’s what happens when you live by the narrative.
Let’s talk cognitive dissonance, here are some quotes from my economically illiterate opponent:
“Democratic government WAS created to fight for honesty and integrity.” “Democratic government’s task is to rein-in the exploitation and greed found in the DNA of capitalism seeps into and attempts to spoil the government.” “The money from capitalism infiltrating government is what spoils society, not government infiltrating (regulating) business.”——–
No, No, and No! What manifesto did this come from?
This progressive takes no account of liberty. Democracy is different from liberty. Democracy, in its purest form is little more than mob rule, this is what he puts his faith in. What he omits in all his rhetoric is the sovereignty of the individual. This progressive’s example is using “liberty to a political end…. when in fact liberty is in itself the highest political end” (Lord Acton).
He blames the business for the money offered to government instead of blaming government for accepting the money. Government could not survive without the taxes paid by business and the workers it employs. However, we and business could do just fine without government. Truly our only need for government is to protect its citizens and sovereignty. Frankly, under liberal leadership, this is what has been lost.
Now we have come full circle. We started with us both agreeing that government is corrupt. This progressive abandoned that premise and stated it was the invention of government, not capitalism, that put an end to plundering, and now– government is to fight for honesty and integrity. Wow, what a trip and what a joke.
From this example you can extract the reason progressives want change. One of the things I have learned from this progressive’s perspective is that: “conservatives cling to the status quo”, that’s because it works! But progressives think there must be change and to replace it with something that sounds good. To think differently makes one short sighted. Personally, I find it fascinating that progressives only think in two dimensions (the big picture X,Y axis) would say I’m short sighted. Here’s what short sighted is, along with being impatient, not letting the free market work…. Oops forgot, there is that faith in fellow man again which “was lost”.
I don’t see government as an integral part of the free market and economic process.
No, short sighted is the immediate gratification of a progressive passing a bill in order to see what’s in the bill. Obviously, progressive comprehension & sight isn’t beyond that and when they see the mess they created with their socialistic agenda over time, it’s too late and the cycle continues.
Any & all of those three quotes, I want to know how one would get this idea outside the liberal narrative. Talk about getting your orders from the comrades in the Ministry of Propaganda. The first one is so……it doesn’t deserve any more…… it stands laughable on its own. Now the second one almost has some merit. We do need an element of government to address the exploitation, but then…. how do you define exploitation if you are not referring to slavery? The rest is very disturbing in that if you make it into a math/logic problem, the conclusion would be that government is pure and just without capitalism. That puts us back in the USSR. There it is just, if you were part of the bourgeoisie.
Conclusion:
One of our founders, Thomas Paine, recognized that, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” The intolerable one is where progressives are taking us all. Everyone will be equally miserable, then we will all be happy.
Americans want a free society and unfortunately for this progressive that means less government. I do find it disturbing when one has lost that much of themselves, to place the care of their lives in a faceless collective government rather than their fellow man.
This is a valid indication that progressives are not worthy of liberty and freedom because they are not ready to handle freedom. It takes personal responsibility to be able to handle freedom. This includes the business world also, manage a business properly and profitably-expect no bail out. There is already a safety net for that called Chapter 11 or 13 bankruptcy.
The government has its reach so far in our personal business that we have become dependent on that government and not ourselves. This current path we are on is one of mediocrity and equality designed to lose our American culture and transform us to the level of now third world countries. Progressives have to get us accustomed to this by placing guilt, using terms like “shared sacrifice” and “fair share”. As an American, I never thought I would actually hear any politician use those Soviet type terms. The tax system we have now is already a progressive one. Sacrifice is an individual choice usually connected with an incentive. Since government is amoral, the amount that comes from “fair share” is immoral.
These anti-capitalists are looking for government control of not just our money but our behavior. This is why climate change is such an issue along with health care, gun control, civil asset forfeitures and yes we have seen private property issues. Taxes at immoral levels and regulations designed to repress small businesses from competing with big corporations. Remember it’s the politicians fault for taking the money, not the business for offering it.
There is nothing more balancing for equality than a free market. The only thing unequal is the level of ambition and the drive for results. This is one contributing factor to income inequality, a non-issue, except for progressives. This is where progressives use government as a revolutionary tool to eliminate citizens and create comrades. This is the sad destiny of socialism. Society split into two classes forever in conflict.
People who are greedy (according to progressives) who want a better life—- People who have ambition (according to capitalists) and want a better life—-
—-Are jailed and/or shot as a subversive.
This is not fiction, imagination, or conspiracy theory. This is the actual and historical path of socialism. Americans are embracing this. Why?
Still no one can explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist.
Nonovelist 