jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (26 posts)

The delusions of the left

  1. innersmiff profile image74
    innersmiffposted 2 years ago

    For all the well-intentioned goals of the left, they naively posit the state as the answer to all of our problems. Really, the state? That perennial swindler and murderer? The very institution that protects and empowers the ruling class the left claims to be wary of?

    http://tucker.liberty.me/2015/02/11/the … -the-left/

    I'll let the article speak for itself: a modern classic.

    But my question to the glorious HubPages forum is: why?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image45
      Castlepalomaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Why not balance the left and right together? Rather than fight each other and call each other delusional.

      1. innersmiff profile image74
        innersmiffposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        A couple of people on the thread have mistaken me and the author as being on the right. Soon we shall see 'The delusions of the right' and I'll share that too.

        In any case, I don't think that would work. The middle in between two extremes is not automatically correct. Both the left and right are wrong, albeit for different reasons.

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In an effort of the author to malign the left he left out the quest mongering of the elitists. Through legislation and fear the elite has been able to "lock in" the industries that he outlined and in the process gained control of these industries. I don't agree with the minimum wage analogy of raising the bar too high so as to exclude the poor but he made some other very good points. Whether the left is blind to the guise of successful governmental control the right does not seem very motivated to straighten the mess out. Just repealing regulations and laws that could weaken government controls does not help cure the cancerous effects of special interests that have evolved into institutional control mechanisms.

      1. innersmiff profile image74
        innersmiffposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The state is the control mechanism. Corporations on their own cannot do anything to you without your consent , whereas the state is the supreme violent authority. It cannot protect you from anyone.

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          In a perfect world you would be correct. The state is supposed to be separate and unbiased in its function. Unfortunately with corporate influence and now even a persona as outline by the Supreme Court they have unrestrained ability to determine and dictate in many cases through their donations to the candidates.

          1. innersmiff profile image74
            innersmiffposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            It's surprising you havnt seen the irony. You accuse me of thinking 'perfect world' but describe a scenario  that 'should' occur that hasn't happened in all of human history. The state's *purpose* is to sell its power to the highest bidder.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I would submit that your answers are also loaded with irony. *purpose* being another term for new direction is far from the reasons. The should be book has not been published but there are plenty or references to it by many. My contention is more of an aspiration and not a doomed reality scenario.

    3. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      So is folding up like a lawn chair in the face of Thurston Howell and the plutocrats better?. Believe me, I trust them much less. If I had a choice between the plutocrat and the  so called "oppressive state" as defined by a right winger-corporate stooge, the selection is quite easy. Just so much revisionist rubbish (Mr. Peabody and Sherman variety) from the loathsome right that will do anything to dupe the masses while it consolidates its wealth and power

      1. wilderness profile image99
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I don't know; it seems more like the worst of it is the loathsome left duping the masses into accepting their slavery of constant charity rather than self-sufficiency.  Greed (wanting more than we produce) is a powerful motivator and easily encouraged simply by explaining that it is "deserved" somehow.

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          So wilderness, you buy this article ?Greed is also translated into making it difficult to impossible to become self sufficient.

          To each his own, cest la vie. While we deny a ideological basis for our discussions we are often times on opposite sides of the divide.

          1. wilderness profile image99
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            ??  I thought it was always about ideology.  The one side seeks to enslave through charity, the other to let 'em rot in their own juices (and, all too often, force their brand of religion on them).

            Castlepaloma  is right - somewhere in the center is the correct answer, a balancing act that politicians from neither side seems to understand.

      2. innersmiff profile image74
        innersmiffposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Any refutations you can offer?

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          innersmiff, there was a lot in that article. I will start with a refutation of the articles attack on the minimum wage. 90% of the world's economies employ such a wage. Why do you think that is? A tool of the state? that's silly. It is designed to provide a minimum floor for protecting labor from exploitation, and not have a Dickensian situation that eventually have to be dealt with using taxpayer monies. All you have to do is go back to the beginning of  20th century to see my point of view in practice. The guy that wrote that article is speaking of a theory with no real application and is quite impractical in the modern world.

          1. innersmiff profile image74
            innersmiffposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I think you must mean 90% of the world's 'states' have mandated a minimum wage. Economies, those which are made of the free exchange of individuals, can do no such thing. So yes, they are tools of the state.

            We can only confuse matters when we talk of 'exploitation' when it comes to  voluntary exchange. When you prohibit a person from working for less than a certain amount you are violating their freedom of choice. A man who loses his job because his employer can no longer afford him is not better off for it.

            There are times when I've been struggling to find work when I'd feel like imploring "please exploit me!". A wage less than the mandated minimum is better than no wage at all.

    4. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Claiming the state is the answer is to ignore thousands of years of history that says otherwise. The old saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely", applies here but the warnings go unheeded as the left attempts their version  of a Utopian "change" with government  leading the way. Leftists programs almost always accomplish the opposite of what it pretends to fix.

      As to the why, this happens there are differing theories. My view is that the political left encompasses a secular religion that makes a god out of the government. The political left is made of many factions, among them is the small but influential hard left intellectuals found in media and education who are true believers of Marxism and socialism; then there's are larger group who we could call the low information crowd or useful idiots ect.. who buy into leftist ideas because of low morals, low knowledge or have a chip on their shoulders; there's the union crowd who mistakenly believe that the left is the ideology of the working man, there's the civil rights group who think Al Sharpton is legit and not a thug who runs scams. Others include the feminists and the Gay rights crowd. There are many also who grew up democrats and believed the world is what they were mistakenly told it was.

      1. wilderness profile image99
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        +1  I think you are right.

      2. Credence2 profile image81
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Once again the the interminable ghost crawls out from the woodwork?

        Your pet theories aside with your preference for anarchy and feudalism made manifest,is it any wonder that you stay hiding?

        Regardless, there are lot more of US than then are of you based on demographic trends obvious to us all. So, what are you going to do, the right still has declining fortunes for large part of the American electorate. You all had to be ready to take hemlock when Obama was elected and then reelected. perhaps from you perspective the entire AMERICAN electorate are 'useful idiots.
        So, the right winger is america's enlightened one, yeah in a pigs eye

        1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
          wba108@yahoo.composted 2 years agoin reply to this

          “Your preference for anarchy and feudalism made manifest”

          Anarchy, Really? Is that because I don’t like a President who ignores the will of the people and changes or refuses to enforce laws passed by our elected representatives? How many exceptions has he created for his healthcare program or why does he refuse to enforce our immigration laws that are already on the books? Talk about lawlessness, this president has issued more executive orders than any president I know of.  Or how about a president who uses his state of the union address to lecture the Supreme Court because they think his ideas are unconstitutional?  I can’t recall any president doing that before.

          Conservatives such as myself, strongly believe in the rule of law and abiding by the limits of the Constitution. Liberals on the other hand, belief they know better than the founders and the truth be told, see the Constitution as an obstacle to their statist agenda. Its seems many liberals feel its fine to break the law and take to the streets when Republicans are in charge but when one of their own are in office, all one needs to do is question their agenda and you’re a bigot, racist, obstructionist ect…

          Feudalism, are you kidding me? If anybody favors the rich and powerful it’s the Democrat Party? Wall Street favored Obama and the democrats 2 to 1 in 2008. Obamacare, the largest entitlement program in history rewarded the American Medical Association along with largest insurance and pharmaceutical companies for their political support, all this at the expense of smaller and less politically connected companies along with the consumers themselves. .The 700 billion dollars stimulus program didn’t help the economy a bit but took the lions share of the hard earned money from taxpayers to payoff to big labor unions in exchange for their support.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image88
            Quilligrapherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Hello there, Will. May I call you Will? It is nice to meet another New Yorker on Hubpages.

            I would be delighted to agree with your comments to Credence2 except most of the statements in the post were untrue.

            For example, you said, “Talk about lawlessness, this president has issued more executive orders than any president I know of.” This comment is not only false but it reveals a huge factual gap in your knowledge.

            Every other president elected since 1889 has issued more executive orders on average per year in office than President Obama. {1}

            Several other distortions in your post also need to be corrected. 

            You wrote: “Or how about a president who uses his state of the union address to lecture the Supreme Court because they think his ideas are unconstitutional? I can't recall any president doing that before.”

            Really? Have you ever heard of Google? No, not President Google! (just kidding big_smile )

            Franklin Roosevelt lectured the Supreme Court in one of his State of the Union speeches. He even tried to increase the number of sitting justices in an effort to alter the balance of the Court. Both Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln took very public stances against Supreme Court decisions and Andrew Jackson openly defied the Court’s ruling in Worchester v. Georgia, 1832. {2}

            Your post also includes, “If anybody favors the rich and powerful it's the Democrat Party? Wall Street favored Obama and the democrats 2 to 1 in 2008.”

            Now, that is true. However, you should also mention that President Obama did not favor the rich and powerful when elected. As a result, Wall Street’s securities and investment industries donated about $8.5 million to Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012, more than double the $3 million this group donated for President Obama’s re-election. In fact, the broader finance/insurance/real estate business sector provided more than $19.1 million to Gov. Romney compared to about $8.4 million for the President. {3}
            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12208846.jpg
            “The sheer amount of cash Wall Street has sent Romney represents an extremely lopsided giving pattern. No other presidential candidate, including President Barack Obama, comes close to tapping the motherlode of industry riches. The industry's abandonment of Obama could hardly be more dramatic.” {4}

            “The 700 billion dollars stimulus program didn't help the economy a bit.”

            It is amazing to see you spreading this lie. Your words, sir, could not be further from the truth. The New York Times editorial on Sunday Feb. 22, 2014 made this point succinctly: “Of all the myths and falsehoods that Republicans have spread about President Obama, the most pernicious and long-lasting is that the $832 billion stimulus package did not work.”{5}

            You are clearly not an economist. Most agree the expansive stimulus efforts undertaken by President Obama prevented a second recession that could have turned into a depression. The data reveal that the stimuli bolstered the nation’s economic output by 2 to 3 percent from 2009 to 2011. Without it, an additional 5.3 million people would have fallen into poverty in 2010 alone. Moreover, these programs improved US roads, fixed or replaced bridges, and increased the nations inventory of transit vehicles. These funds cleaned up water supplies, created school reforms, and greatly expanded the use of renewable energy and broadband Internet service.
            {6}

            “The Recovery Act was not a failed program,” the Congressional Budget Office’s director, Douglas Elmendorf, reported to Congress in 2012. “Our position is that it created higher output and employment than would have occurred without it.”{7}

            On the other hand, if you think you have evidence that proves the stimulus spending did not help the economy, then I would be pleased to see it.

            It is a pleasure to read your viewpoints, Will.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1} http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
            {2} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jac … an_removal
            {3} http://www.politifact.com/florida/state … eet-obama/
            {4} http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/03 … on-romney/
            {5}
            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opini … .html?_r=0
            {6} http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default … report.pdf
            {7} http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/201 … -stimulus/

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Quill, you are more adept with a sharp pen than Zorro was with his sword. I am just glad that I am behind you when you wield it.

              You are far to modest. You, in a substantive way refuted every major theme of his argument.

              The sharp pen can; separate the wheat from the chaff, acts as a scalpel to separate the bone from the marrow and, most importantly allows the world to clearly tell the difference between s*** and shinola

              Thanks

            2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
              wba108@yahoo.composted 2 years agoin reply to this

              QUILLIGRAPHER-

              “For example, you said, “Talk about lawlessness, this president has issued more executive orders than any president I know of.” This comment is not only false but it reveals a huge factual gap in your knowledge.”

              It’s true that he has not issued a record number of executive orders. What is true is that Obama has issued a record number presidential memorandums according to a USA Today review.

              Why is this significant? Well, because they’re nearly identical to executive orders in what they can accomplish and their impact.

              The relevant issue remains, that Abusive, unlawful and unilateral action has been a trademark of the Obama Administration.

              The fact remains that Obama unilaterally amended Obamacare, Invented Labor Law Exemptions related to the (WARN) Act of 1988, Waiving the TANF Work Requirement, Ignoring a Statutory Deadline  outlined in The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1983, made “Recess” Appointments Made While the Senate Was in Session, Abdicated the Administration’s Duty to Defend the Law in Court regarding the defense of marriage act,  used No Child Left Behind Waivers to coerce the states to  agreeing to implement the Administration’s preferred education policies such as the common core, Intimidated Florida to Stop Its Voter Roll Cleanup which attempted to remove non- citizens from their voter rolls, he did this in advance to the 2012 elections. He enacted the DREAM Act by Executive Fiat and Refusal to Enforce Federal Drug Laws. (1)

              (1) http://www.heritage.org/research/report … al-actions

              I will respond to your other statements when I can

              1. Quilligrapher profile image88
                Quilligrapherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Good day to you, Will. I truly appreciate your prompt and courteous reply. It is very cold down here right now, which keeps the snow around a lot longer than I like.

                As noted, your earlier post contained a number of false statements including this one:

                "this president has issued more executive orders than any president I know of." {1}

                Now, after retracting only one of the many errors, you surprisingly replace it with another falsehood that is equally absurd.

                "It's true that he has not issued a record number of executive orders. What is true is that Obama has issued a record number presidential memorandums according to a USA Today review."

                Let's look closely at this USA Today article of Dec. 17, 2014, shall we? The opening paragraph is a concise summary:

                "WASHINGTON - President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history - using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders." [Bold font added for emphasis.]{2}

                The authority supporting this claim is included by USA Today near the mid-point of the article:

                " Kenneth Lowande, a political science doctoral student at the University of Virginia, counted up memoranda published in the Code of Federal Regulations since 1945. In an article published in the December issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, he found that memoranda appear to be replacing executive orders."

                However, Will, the scholar cited by the paper as their expert on this subject said the statement, "more often than any other president in history," was not correct. Two weeks after it was published, the Washington Post tagged this USA Today claim with two Pinocchio and quoted Mr. Lowande's reaction to the error in their Fact Checker blog:

                "He [Stephen Lowande] noted that USA Today's assertion that Obama has issued the "most ever" was not correct. 'More accurately,'" Mr. Lowande is quoted as saying, "'he [President Obama] has deemed more of his [memorandum] important enough to publish in the Federal Register.'" {3}

                Therefore, the scholar that actually did the counting refutes the claim of more Executive Memoranda than any other president, the claim on which you based your remarks.

                Stepping away from your innuendo for a moment, here are some verifiable facts to consider. All presidential orders and memoranda etc, are transparent, i.e. made available to the public. All wield the same authority under the law regardless of the form used, therefore, there is no practical or compelling reason for a President to favor one over the other. Just like bagels and bialys, they all bear the same weight. They only differ in style and preference.

                Furthermore, all are legitimate and necessary forms of communication that have been used by ALL presidents in widely varying numbers. Since 1935, all Executive Orders must be published in the Federal Register but this law does not include memoranda. Some, but not all, of President Obama's memoranda are printed in the Federal Register but ALL are listed on the White House web site.

                Finally, your recent post lists presidential directives but does not offer any evidence that they are, to use your own words, "abusive, unlawful and unilateral."

                Personally, I find it ludicrous to argue executive overreach based solely on the number of presidential directives rather than on their content. Yet, your post continues to focus on the number of directives instead of addressing their substance.

                I thank you for sharing your views with us. I wish you well, Will. I hope the winter is kinder to you than it has been to me.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2707696
                {2} http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli … /20191805/
                {3} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac … memoranda/

        2. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          "Regardless, there are lot more of US than then are of you based on demographic trends obvious to us all. So, what are you going to do, the right still has declining fortunes for large part of the American electorate."

          Ahh... That perspective seems like a good hunk of meat deserving its own thread.

          I agree with your point, but I suspect we have different opinions as to why it is so.

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You know, I wanted to go into that with a little depth, I think that I will pose such a question today (soon), I would like to hear your take on it

            1. GA Anderson profile image83
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I beat you to it. http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/128687

              Of course the starter post was a bucket of red meat, but I am hopeful for serious follow-up.

              GA

 
working