Prev | List | Random | Next
Join
Powered by RingSurf!



Anti-PC League

Powered by Blogger


Day By Day© by Chris Muir.


Monday, December 05, 2005

Why I Am Not A Leftist Liberal (Part 3)

Part Three in my series addressing what could possibly be one of the only instances in modern time (well, at least in the last three years) that a Liberal has defined what he believed, other than being against President Bush and the war in Iraq.

(also check out part one and part two)

I believe multinational corporations do not always act in the best
interests of America,
Technically, the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit for it's shareholders, who in turn must provide enough incentive to hire the best businessmen they can afford in order to keep the corporation afloat. The businessmen, in turn, must maintain and increase profitability in order to provide an incentive for shareholders to keep their investments within the corporation's stock. So really it's a system of mutual self-interest. In other words, all business is to make a profit by means of trade and commerce, and rightly so, because no one is going to engage in trade in order to lose money. This has a beneficial effect of employing workers, providing goods to consumers at a lower price, which has the side-effect of being good for America.

But is it the purpose of the corporation to serve the state? It is if your a politician trying to get elected, or a idealogue; both who are looking out for their own self-interests, same as the businessmen, often to the deteriment of business, and therefore America.

The cost of doing business in America is higher than in other countries. This is because our taxes and regulations have made it so. Yet are we supposed to hate the multinationals because they have the ability to move elsewhere?
I believe that women should have every option available to them when it comes to their health,
Obviously this is allegory for being pro-choice. Though if you were to take the statement at face value then you'd have to ask yourself, "what about the men?"

Of course the abortion issue involves more than being pro- or anti- choice. Margaret Sanger - the founder of Planned Parenthood - was a big believer in eugenics. Femanists have used the issue to push their agenda, and have cut the rights of the father completely out of the picture. Conversely, the religionists look upon this issue as a moral one based on their prohibitions against murder. The politicians use this devisive issue to their benefit.

In short, this argument has very little to do with health, and more to do with ideology, theology, and politics.
I believe that the government wastes more money on military spending than it does on welfare or aid to the needy,
Whoa, let's look at the numbers. The militaru currently eats up alot of the budget, but also consider that the U.S. is currently fighting two wars, and if you want to ensure victory, you don't try to fight on the cheap. Now consider that the welfare system encompasses six different government agencies: Health and Human Services, Agriculture, HUD, Labor, Treasury, and Education. add to that Social Security, which is effectively bankrupt.

Look at the projections for government spending on the above link. Is defense taking up the majority of the budget? Nope. Welfare in it's various forms is, and looks to grow.

So what's the problem? The fact is that whether we win this war or not (and we will), a war can still be be won. Yet there will always be poverty - even though the poor in this country live better than the majority of the world's population - in a room full of billionares, the man with $900 million is a schmuck.

You have to look at things in terms of incentives rather than intentions. Does welfare reduce poverty? Nope, but it gets politicians elected.
I believe children should be taught science not mysticism,.
All well and good, but our current public education system doesn't let you have that choice does it? In a way this is poetic justice. For years people have had to endure the teaching of ideologies to their children that they don't approve of, yet now the shoe is on the other foot.

Maybe Liberals would be willing to compromise? Perhaps we can have school vouchers and therefore the power to determine what our kids are taught? Of course this means the Leftists would also have to give up their ideologically-based education programs, and that ain't happenin'.
I believe that taxes should be paid by those who can most afford to pay them,

The fallacy here is the implication that taxes are something fixed, rather than defined by government spending and political social engineering and buying of votes.

It's interesting to note that the very same politicians who claim that, "the rich don't pay their fair share", have no problem finding tax loopholes. John Kerry, whose worth is around $700 million, only pays 10% in taxes, whereas those who make more than $200k are supposed to pay 25%. Who is really not paying their fair share? But I digress.

This idea frankly has very little to do with sound fiscal policy and everything to do with class envy and greed. Yes, greed. Greed that one feels that if they want a particular social program for their personal benefit, that all they have to do is take the money needed to run it from another. Regardless of the right of a man to keep what he has earned, which was the foundation of the American experiment, and the reasons our Founding Fathers went to war. The difference is that instead of taking it for the king, it is being taken for the benefit of our elected officials and given to people who will vote for them, and then called "social justice".

My view on the rich? If you don't like them, then invent a product or service they think they can't live without and sell it to them. Then you can be rich and redistribute your money how you see fit, but don't think you have the right to tell me what to do with mine.
I believe running huge government budget deficits will hurt our economy,
No kidding, but look at the information above. These deficits are being run up by the very same social welfare programs that this author supports, and looks to support in the future.

Time and time again we have seen that what is bad for the economy is continued government over-regulation and over-taxation. It comes down to this: the government does not know how to spend your money, care for your needs, and look out for your interests, as well as you can.
I believe that everyone is entitled to health care,

Actually all we are entitled to in life is death, everything else is a result of work or luck.

The problem with socialized healthcare is that it isn't free and doesn't provide the quality of the free-market variety (keep in mind that what we have now is not a free-market). As Canada has proven, if you want to screw-up an industry. get government involved in it:
As reported in a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims" (http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-1203-PP.pdf), in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Houston says that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, and that's after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.
Then there is the issue of when the "right" of one to "free" healthcare infringes on the rights of another to provide for it:
And slavery is really what's at issue here: the enslavement of some to the needs of others. For to the degree health care is made a "right," health care providers are enslaved. Doctors, nurses, scientists and businessmen with too much self-respect to have their abilities declared your "right," will simply abandon medicine, leaving your medical future to those lacking such self-respect. (It's already begun.) Investment dollars will divert from health care interests into freer and thus more profitable areas. (That's begun, too.) Oh, but this has its upside: there'd be no gripes about the "high cost" of new prescription drugs -- there'd never be any new drugs.
That last part is true, since we in America with our uncompassionate pharmaceutical corporations lead the world in advanced medicines.

Health care isn't a "right" anymore than it's a "right" for you to walk to the local mechanic and demand he fix your car.
I believe that the government wastes more money on military spending than it does on welfare or aid to the needy,
Again, at least you see more in return with the military than you do with social welfare programs, and it even costs less.

Then you have the reality of this issue: a nation cannot maintain it's soveriegnty without an effective military, yet limiting social welfare contributes to it's prosperity.
I believe corporations are not people and should not have the same rights as persons,
Now I'm not sure of the deeper meaning here. On the surface there is the fact that this overlooks the knowledge of what a corporation is: people. Corporations are people who run a business that are answerable to other people who buy their stock.
I believe we should take affirmative action to correct the socio-economic imbalances created by racism and sexism,
Except by "correcting" one imbalance, you create another, that is those who are denied a job not because they aren't skilled, but because they are of a certain race/gender.

This attitude is a result of the philosophy that embraces an equality of results rather than an equality of opprotunity. Meaning that our society is sexist/racist because there is not an equal amount of black millionaires to white millionaires, despite the fact that there are no rules barring the hiring of certain races or genders.

It's important to note that blacks and minorities were graduating college in increasing numbers long before affirmative action, as Thomas Sowell notes:
There was no affirmative action when I was admitted as a student at Harvard College in 1955 but, even if there had been and even if I had been admitted because of it, what about all the blacks who went to Harvard before me? The first black man graduated from Harvard in 1870 -- about a century before affirmative action.

It is not just a handful of individuals who advanced without the supposedly indispensable black "leaders." Most of the reduction in the number of black families in poverty occurred in the 1940s and 1950s -- before any major civil rights legislation. Black males doubled their years of schooling during that time. When you double your education, your income tends to go up -- with or without Jesse Jackson or other black "leaders."

Remember this famous line:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

And these less famous lines by Frederick Douglass:
Everybody has asked the question. . ."What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!
In short kids, by giving minorities and women affirmative action, you are telling everyone that they cannot stand on their own merits, when history has already proven that wrong.

But hey, it keeps Jesse Jackson rich.
and I believe that we are a nation of immigrants and we should welcome those with the drive, determination and ambition to come to America in search of a better life.
I have no problem with immigants or immigration. The issue I have is illegal immigrants who pay no taxes yet recieve all the benefits and social welfare programs of a taxpayer. If you come to this country, you come to work and earn your way without government interference, not to sit on your ass and get a handout from 'rich Americans.'

The other issue is the borders, and it's a security issue. Anyone can come in to our country to do whatever harm they wish. That's unacceptable in our post-9/11 world. Immigration is fine, but we need to know that those who come here intend to do us no harm.

The divide here between Liberals, Leftists and Conservatives is between the idealistic view of what "should happen" and what does happen. Does rent control work? Nope. It creates housing shortages while eliminating the incentives to build new housing and maintain old housing. We need to think in terms of incentives, rather than intentions. Yeah, socialism is a great idea on paper, but it can't compete with capitalism. That's because socialism lacks the incentive to achieve and excel.

Obviously there is more to these issues than what I've said here, but I hope this is a good overview on my attitude towards these.