Karl Marx was a 19th century socialist who laid down the foundation for Nazi Germany and “Comrade” Russia. He produced many writings from which modern day and 19th century socialistic-would-be-communists draw their theories and agendas.
In his writings Marx demeans capitalism as much as he can. He hated capitalism with a passion. Claiming that “the wicked capitalists” were depriving the workers of the right to have an equal standing, he claimed that communism would allow man to do what he liked best. I quote:
“In capitalist society, he is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic and must remain so if he does not wish to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.”
-Karl Marx, The German Ideology Continue reading
The Question: “It is unreasonable to confine ourselves strictly to the text of the Constitution. We should interpret the Constitution broadly, to allow the federal government to exercise powers we need it to exercise, even if they aren’t actually listed in that document.” How would Thomas Jefferson respond to that statement?
Thomas Jefferson was a strong supporter of the Constitution. While not actually present in the convention of 1787, he supported it strongly with his friend and one of the authors, James Madison.
In 1792, Jefferson wrote something called the Kentucky Resolution. In that document was stated the reasons not to support such a theory as “different interpretations” of the Constitution. This theory of “different interpretation” is known as “A Living, Breathing Constitution.”
It basically means that the Constitution must change with the times. To understand why Jefferson and most founding fathers were opposed to this view, we must go back all the way to 1765, the beginning of the Revolution. Continue reading
There was once a time, close to a thousand years ago, when the world was made up of so many small states that they were practically innumerable. Many were city-states. Some were fiefdoms. And some were actual “countries” ruled over by a king.
Germany is a perfect example. Close to the year 1000 it was divided up into hundreds of little pieces, each ruled individually. Over time, and through a new consciousness (globalism), it was gradually centralized. Small kingdoms were combined and joined to others to make a bigger and bigger state. Soon there was one Germany, a centralized Germany. A Germany in which places and cultures and language were merged into one, sometimes against the will of the people.
A fairly common misconception is that larger countries are bad. Smaller countries can do so much better, etc. Larger countries are not bad! Heck, look at America! It’s one of the biggest countries in the world and we seem to be doing pretty good. But it is undeniable that smaller countries do have certain advantages that larger countries simply cannot possess because of sheer size. Continue reading
It is a question that has long been asked by conservatives, liberals and other political classes: Does government intervention improve working conditions?
Some, particularly libertarians, say that it absolutely does not! According to them, the government should be the size of a pinhead with about that much authority.
Others say the government should micro-manage everything that goes on. According to this group, the government should be large and hold a lot of authority.
Which is right? Is there not a happy medium?
The preface of the Constitution provides an adequate answer:
“We the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and gain the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Continue reading
Any average guy on the street, when questioned on the subject of poverty and the standard of living, will tell you that it’s worse than ever. He couldn’t be more wrong.
The standard of living, contrary to popular socialistic belief, has dramatically improved over that past two hundred years. I mean, think about it.
In 1620 there was no running water. No toilets. No showers. No electricity. Everything was candles. Move on to 1776. No running water. No electricity. Nothing like what we have today.
1880. Cars are starting to develop. The lightbulb is invented, or just about to be. The economy is growing. The steam engine is in full force
1920. The economy is booming, just before the Depression. Electricity is more frequent. Running water is current.
1950. After World War II the economy is starting to grow again. People are generally much richer, as a whole.
2017. Technology is at an all-time high. Cell phones are as common as dogs. Running water is taken for granted. The Internet is used for practically everything. The poor people are there still, of course. There always are poor people. But compare today’s poor with the 1600’s poor.
Should the government be able to redistribute wealth at its pleasure? Should it be able to take from some random rich guy and give some poor guy a million bucks?
It’s like taking a great grade from a great student and giving it to a lazy non-attender who gets Fs. It discourages both from working harder; one because he knows he doesn’t have to and the other because all the hard work simply goes to benefit another guy.
Wealth is allotted to each one according to work. However hard a man works, that’s how much money he earns. If he works hard in school and college, he gets a degree and great grades, therefore earning him a higher-paying job. Is it right to take his money and give it to a guy who dropped out of high school and is working in a car garage? No!
A millionaire, contrary to socialist belief, WORKS for his money. Of course, there are some that inherit and some that marry into money. But most work to earn those millions of dollars. Is it fair, then, to steal his money to give it to others who have not earned it? No! Continue reading