t wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:51:06 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:


Rather than wasting a considerable amount of time reading that dreck

sigh...





tom watson


Thank-you Tom. My purpose in making the above post was two-fold. First,
I wanted to elicit that elitist "if you don't do all of this you can't
possibly know what you are talking about response". You didn't disappoint.
Frankly, the idea that in order for someone to be able to discuss the
merits/demerits of socialized, collectivized, or other re-distributionist
command economy approaches they must complete that reading list or be
considered unworthy of debating the points is beyond absurd and elitist.
If you feel that a specific definition for some term must be employed in a
discussion -- spit it out, let us know the definition to which you want to
work. My second purpose was a bit more serious; that reading list is
considerable and represents an immense investment of time and preparation
for someone putting together such a seminar and a large investment of time
on the part of those participating in such a seminar. The first question
one should ask is what the purpose of such investment should be. Could this
not be distilled into an examination of the key teachings of marxist
doctrines along with an examination of the results of their attempted
implementation? Were similar seminars offered that delved with equivalent
depth into the bases of the representative democracy formed under the
Constitution? Was equivalent depth provided for the federalist and
anti-federalist papers, the writings of Locke, Jefferson, Madison and the
founders? Similarly, were similar seminars offered on the workings of
free-market economies? I know that the answer for that at several
institutions of higher learning with which I was acquainted even 25 years
ago would have been "no". There seems to be a fascination in academia with
the works of Marx and his fellow travelers that is not exhibited toward
those elements of the society that has enabled this and other western
countries to achieve the levels of accomplishments that they have enjoyed.


The origin of this discussion, the fact that the democrat candidate has in
multiple instances indicated the desire to implement re-distributionist
policies and continued implementation of socialist policies was the heart
of the original elements of the discussion. If you want to categorize and
refine the degree of socialism and more specifically identify with which
statist phylum his ideas are associated, that's fine, it doesn't change the
idea that this candidate is seeking greater government control, larger
government aggrandizement of wealth for the purpose of re-distributing it
to his political gain, and punishing success in the name of fairness.

Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate. You
have posted extensively about you and your son's participation in pine car
derby as well as the accompanying successes. What if the pine car derby
judges were to make the following pronouncement for next year's contest:
Given that you and your son and other winners have been so successful over
the past several years, being able to savor the joy of victory and
competition, the judges have determined that it is not fair that other
disadvantaged children, often not of their own fault, not be capable of
enjoying some degree of success. Therefore, in order to implement a policy
of fairness and assure that the most disadvantaged be able to do well also,
those who have, for the past several years been finalists and winners (the
top 5%) will be required to build and provide two pine cars -- the judges
will then choose one of those entries and provide that car to one of the
losers from previous years (you know the ones, the kid who shows up with
the wheels nailed to the pine car block, not all of them touching the
ground, if he took some time, he may have decorated it with crayon or magic
marker) so that child will also be able to enjoy the thrill of the
competition. We're sure you see the fairness in this new approach and look
forward to your two entries in the coming derby.

That, in a nutshell is what the re-distributionist, "I think when you
spread the wealth around, everybody benefits" policy of the democrat
nominee is proposing. It is no longer about government revenue or seeing
to the constitutionally defined roles of the federal government, it is
about "fairness". Earlier this summer, when it was pointed out to him that
increasing capital gains tax rates have actually been shown to reduce
revenue, he stated he didn't care, it was just fair that capital gains be
taxed at a higher rate than they are now.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough