By both criminalizing and prohibiting economic behaviors the left undermines
legality. Which will be dealt with when we get to crime below.
To the degree in which a nation has sufficient wealth to effectively bribe the whole
population despite the big government control, then the corruption will be less then
in less wealthy societies. The social bribery, say Sweden, mitigates the need for
corruption to survive. Of course, this only eats up wealth faster, bringing the
inevitable conundrum.
In each of the past several sections I have taken a certain aspect of current living
conditions and try to show how the different policy options are both incorrectly
influenced by the socialist paradigm, and how it logically affected current living
conditions, and how a different view might be constructed. And how everything can
be expressed in terms of a left right continuum, and in terms of better, more
productive and less adversarial nature -- rather than the current nastiness and pain
-- and the hell that has accompanied this century, and indeed all of human history.
It is in different cultures that each of these ratios is expressed. It should be clear to
anyone that as each ration is different the cumulative effect within countries will be
different. Histories, geography, religion, nationality, climate -- will all affect the
conditions we see. It is a hard leap to compare Sweden and Burma and say they
are undergirded by the same theory but I hope to have shown that very fact on the
worldview; political and economic views of the world. On the shift, in view of what is
left and right, and the interactions between people, politics and economics.
It would be a bigger project to make a mathematical model showing where on
these scales and the composites, these countries in the world. Perhaps a scale of
1 to 10, 10 being right most, and 1 being left most, lets call Australia or the United
States 10, and Cuba or North Korea 1. And place all the other countries between.
Different people may differ to some degree as to how left or right a particular
country is in a particular area and so I will leave that to others.
What precedes is the basic philosophical underpinnings and a comparison to
current Socialist paradigm that will offer a better way to organize society. Not in the
sense of making a better person, but in dealing with reality and allowing more
natural human activity, with less interference.
People the world over have the same desire -- to survive a little better each year.
The inherent nature of people to do this, to survive better, and the inherent need of
people to cooperate -- lead to the major policy problems in the western world. And
the explanations fostered by Marxists or leftist theory results in these major policy
problems. So pressure and thought builds and people, workers, thinking they must
fight, control and battle bosses, maneuver to increase taxes on companies, seek
restrictive regulations, in some way punish bosses -- and extract what they think
they deserve.
At the same time the bosses, thinking both that their interest is to keep workers
down, and seeing that workers agitate politically to punish bosses, raise prices, fire
workers and fight more remunerative compensation of any kind. In some countries
this result in open hostility, and even revolution. Here in the US our greater wealth
and farther rightness, has only resulted in the sullenness loosely expressed as "rich
v poor" with everyone's dividing line being different. So each appeals to Congress
and the president in various coalitions -- to punish or reward who they think are their
adversaries or friends. This is the horse trading Congress is known for, and that
results in the contradictory mishmash of laws, policies, rules, regulations and taxes.
Each meant to alleviate some great injustice that only stems from the Marxist leftist
ideas that so permeate society.
This contradictory mishmash has been building in the US for 150 years. And
presidents have the impossible, in its most literal sense, task of mediation. Both
the impossibility of the task, and the leftward or rightwardness of the president
currently in office, affect the situation. He cannot even conceive of the solution if he
is wrapped up in the socialist paradigm. It is the expectance of the absurdity of the
current paradigm that will result in the political will of the president and Congress to
change the system.
It is a fact that Americans know the system is screwed up, and that a major, if not
radical change is needed. Intuitively they know the solution is not more government,
bit instead a more responsive system at any level
It is the inherent nature of government to be irresponsive to individuals. It is
designed by one incompatible group of people, and in trying to please all of them,
has no clear direction or lines of responsibility -- and for approval has rigidity built
in. So they can each maintain their particular interests. And this is Congress.
It is designed for, lobbyists and interest groups and coalition, aggregations that
seek their own consensus to be solidified, again impeding flexibility. Rigidity of
process and applications keeps these groups happy and away from the litigation
process.
And it is designed to serve a third group who have no prior input, except through
alleged spokesgroups. It is the users of these programs that require flexibility so
that the program fits the individuals concerned. This inherent need to fit the needs
of individuals is sacrificed, however, to meet the needs of society.
The socialist paradigm even makes us look at the person seeking individuality as a
trouble maker or malcontent. Then when the individual drops out of the system or
the individuals develop their own system they are call anti-social and are illegalized
or otherwise harassed.
legality. Which will be dealt with when we get to crime below.
To the degree in which a nation has sufficient wealth to effectively bribe the whole
population despite the big government control, then the corruption will be less then
in less wealthy societies. The social bribery, say Sweden, mitigates the need for
corruption to survive. Of course, this only eats up wealth faster, bringing the
inevitable conundrum.
In each of the past several sections I have taken a certain aspect of current living
conditions and try to show how the different policy options are both incorrectly
influenced by the socialist paradigm, and how it logically affected current living
conditions, and how a different view might be constructed. And how everything can
be expressed in terms of a left right continuum, and in terms of better, more
productive and less adversarial nature -- rather than the current nastiness and pain
-- and the hell that has accompanied this century, and indeed all of human history.
It is in different cultures that each of these ratios is expressed. It should be clear to
anyone that as each ration is different the cumulative effect within countries will be
different. Histories, geography, religion, nationality, climate -- will all affect the
conditions we see. It is a hard leap to compare Sweden and Burma and say they
are undergirded by the same theory but I hope to have shown that very fact on the
worldview; political and economic views of the world. On the shift, in view of what is
left and right, and the interactions between people, politics and economics.
It would be a bigger project to make a mathematical model showing where on
these scales and the composites, these countries in the world. Perhaps a scale of
1 to 10, 10 being right most, and 1 being left most, lets call Australia or the United
States 10, and Cuba or North Korea 1. And place all the other countries between.
Different people may differ to some degree as to how left or right a particular
country is in a particular area and so I will leave that to others.
What precedes is the basic philosophical underpinnings and a comparison to
current Socialist paradigm that will offer a better way to organize society. Not in the
sense of making a better person, but in dealing with reality and allowing more
natural human activity, with less interference.
People the world over have the same desire -- to survive a little better each year.
The inherent nature of people to do this, to survive better, and the inherent need of
people to cooperate -- lead to the major policy problems in the western world. And
the explanations fostered by Marxists or leftist theory results in these major policy
problems. So pressure and thought builds and people, workers, thinking they must
fight, control and battle bosses, maneuver to increase taxes on companies, seek
restrictive regulations, in some way punish bosses -- and extract what they think
they deserve.
At the same time the bosses, thinking both that their interest is to keep workers
down, and seeing that workers agitate politically to punish bosses, raise prices, fire
workers and fight more remunerative compensation of any kind. In some countries
this result in open hostility, and even revolution. Here in the US our greater wealth
and farther rightness, has only resulted in the sullenness loosely expressed as "rich
v poor" with everyone's dividing line being different. So each appeals to Congress
and the president in various coalitions -- to punish or reward who they think are their
adversaries or friends. This is the horse trading Congress is known for, and that
results in the contradictory mishmash of laws, policies, rules, regulations and taxes.
Each meant to alleviate some great injustice that only stems from the Marxist leftist
ideas that so permeate society.
This contradictory mishmash has been building in the US for 150 years. And
presidents have the impossible, in its most literal sense, task of mediation. Both
the impossibility of the task, and the leftward or rightwardness of the president
currently in office, affect the situation. He cannot even conceive of the solution if he
is wrapped up in the socialist paradigm. It is the expectance of the absurdity of the
current paradigm that will result in the political will of the president and Congress to
change the system.
It is a fact that Americans know the system is screwed up, and that a major, if not
radical change is needed. Intuitively they know the solution is not more government,
bit instead a more responsive system at any level
It is the inherent nature of government to be irresponsive to individuals. It is
designed by one incompatible group of people, and in trying to please all of them,
has no clear direction or lines of responsibility -- and for approval has rigidity built
in. So they can each maintain their particular interests. And this is Congress.
It is designed for, lobbyists and interest groups and coalition, aggregations that
seek their own consensus to be solidified, again impeding flexibility. Rigidity of
process and applications keeps these groups happy and away from the litigation
process.
And it is designed to serve a third group who have no prior input, except through
alleged spokesgroups. It is the users of these programs that require flexibility so
that the program fits the individuals concerned. This inherent need to fit the needs
of individuals is sacrificed, however, to meet the needs of society.
The socialist paradigm even makes us look at the person seeking individuality as a
trouble maker or malcontent. Then when the individual drops out of the system or
the individuals develop their own system they are call anti-social and are illegalized
or otherwise harassed.
| CHAPTER 15 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
