Socialists are generally full of crap and woefully misinformed. But this nutty piece in the Chattanoogan really takes the cake, although the depth of his economic ignorance is pretty common on the Left. Not surprisingly, his education and livelihood (and that of his wife) has been almost entirely funded by the taxpaying, philanthropist, capitalist pigs he ignorantly derides. Although Meyer's rambling invective succeeds in only making a fool of himself.
"Libertarianism, a fairly new movement in the United States, is propounded
by politicians, business people and pundits. They say it is the only way America
can regain its pre-eminence in the world. But it is really just
another name for egotism, narcissism, and sociopathic behavior.
It is not a new way of thinking, but is based in erroneous
aristocratic assumptions regarding wealth, power and position that are still
held by many. They believe they are smarter, better, and therefore, more
deserving than the rest of us."
Egotism, Narcissism and Sociopathic behavior? Wow! Calm down there junior! Actually, Libertarianism is about egoism or the pursuit of rational self interest that is the natural state of all human beings. It is also the reason our economy is the largest in the world and the reason countries like China and India have successfully loosened their grip on the natural tendencies of their people. Meyer must believe that it's not fair that so many others are smarter and better than him, so he deserves their money and property.
"Many high achievers (and those who believe they should be, but…) act as if they
are aristocrats. They deserve to be treated in a special way, socially, in
business and legally Other people believe they are to be treated
aristocratically because of their birth into the right family, education in the
right schools and position in the right society. They think they should not have
to pay a fair share of taxes, have laws limit their actions, or be critiqued for
their lifestyles."
No, they want to be treated the way they deserve based on what they are willing to pay for. And if they want to spend the money and associations they earned in a way that benefits their children, then why is that any of Meyer's damn business? And we libertarians want government out of every one's life action's and lifestyle, not just our own. Just because Meyer's is a good little socialist drone, it doesn't mean the rest of us want to be, no matter how much his misery loves company.
Meyers also makes himself feel better by thinking that most successful people were born with silver spoons in their mouths, when in fact the large majority got there themselves from the lower and middle classes through voluntary trade with their fellow man.
On taxes, maybe Meyers can be the first liberal to answer this question honestly: If the top 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes and the bottom 50% pay 4%, how much more taxes "on the rich" (whatever that is) does he think is fair?
"Instead, they deserve to have several Mc'Mansions and condos and to buy up huge tracts of
land for their own use, posting it to prevent others from enjoying it. And, of
course, they imply, "Don't question us about paying for what we have. After all,
we've got money, even if we also have huge debts." '
That's called private property and it's part of what was meant when the founders said that you have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Look at the poorest countries in the world. What they all have in common is that they lack recognized and legally protected property rights. Without them, individuals can't leverage anything into wealth building economic activity.
Meyers also whines that he and others can't use others private property, which iIwill take to mean that he holds the Marxist belief everyone should own it. Which means no one will and no one will be able to benefit from it unless unless statist dictators like Meyer say they can, for a price. Meyers must believe those Mc'Mansions get built for free and all the labor, materials along with taxes just drop from the sky and no one other than the evil Libertarian receives anything of value. Rational thinking sure can get clouded by raging envy.
"The money they made is frequently not due to inventiveness or even hard
work. Instead it is made by cooking books, cutting corners, ignoring laws, and
making false (or at a minimum very questionable) statements in documents,
contracts and advertisements. They also prey on people's weaknesses, pride and
greed, but mainly on their ignorance."
OK. Now that's funny. I guess Mr. Meyer thinks that all the lights, cars, computers, clothes, beer, medications etc.,etc. that he can buy also appear by magic, weren't invented or were just the result of cooking the books or cutting corners. And of course he condescends to the average person by suggesting that they are too dumb or gullible to make their own economic decisions without meddling by anointed one's like Meyer.
What this fool fails to realize is that no economy can flourish as ours has if it were based on dishonesty. Fraudulent dealing produces nothing of value and reduces overall wealth. This is typical marxist rhetoric. A bunch of emotional pablum with no regard for facts. And fraud and theft is also illegal and should be. If Meyer has specific evidence, he should call the police.
Finally, Meyers adds the cherry to this stupidity Sundae with this:
"In the last century, the communist governments in the USSR and
China as well as Nazism were built on this same line of thinking. "Trust us,
we've got all the answers." In totalitarian societies, the elite reserve the
best for themselves and give the masses only enough to keep them from rioting.
Do we want that kind of life in America?"
How can one compare Libertarianism to those philosophies when what we want is less government for everyone, not just ourselves. It is too much government that led to the slaughter of over 100 million people in the twentieth century alone. Meyer is the one who wants to replace individual freedom with the force of government and is being unintentionally and laughably ironic. Not to mention downright incoherent.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages." - Adam Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment