Posts
Liberals have big hearts to make up for what they lack in brains. Perhaps it isn't fair of me to say this--I know there are plenty of smart liberals out there with degrees in studies other than Ancient Dance Rituals as a Prelude to Coitus, but it seems that even those liberals have a somewhat simple-minded way of looking at life. Let me 'splain.
Take Obama (please). He talks a good game about income inequality, as if the concept of some people making more money than you is unfair, (just because they work harder and can accomplish more), but it seems to me that income opportunity is more realistic than income inequality. There will always be people better at doing things than other people, and in order to retain them, employers will pay them more. That's the free market.
Imagine if all baseball players had income equality. Why should they try to excel? You'd see more bunting to save energy, bases on balls thrown by pitchers who were not going to exert themselves, and fewer spectators. There would be no incentive to excel. The game would be about as exciting as watching cheese mold. Think about it, Mr. Obama.
But Marxists don't see it that way. They believe that sharing is noble and good. Maybe it's because Karl Marx was a lazy, hygiene deficient, non-supportive father of 7 children, only 3 of whom made it to adulthood. He may have also fathered a son out of wedlock, with his housekeeper, but hey, everyone seems to be doing it on the left these days. Marx also suffered from a "weak chest" which excused him from military service. He probably didn't want to risk it anyway. "Honest Karl" used to rent apartments in the new countries he immigrated to after being kicked out of the previous one. He used aliases so the apartment owners couldn't track him down when he failed to pay rent. Naturally, communism made sense to him because he was getting the benefits from the sweat of other workers without having to work up a sweat on his own.
But liberals are not necessarily lazy; they are just simplistic in their emotional analysis of life on the dole. "If we all joined hands, and all pitched in, and sung a pleasant song that glorified the proletariat and attacked the bourgeoisie, and maybe even pitched tents in a park where we could complain about not getting our fair share, then we shall overcome."
In other words, let those who are successful, carry on their backs and sweat of their labors, be it mental or physical, those with less ambition to succeed on their own. But make no mistake, those on the left with fortunes, will never want to share those fortunes they earned in the free market. For them, Marxism and socialism are merely power grabs for them. They are not the ones they intended to share the wealth--it's the other guy.
Liberals still want to suck the teat of government at the expense of others, which is why they still suck.
Tweet
Take Obama (please). He talks a good game about income inequality, as if the concept of some people making more money than you is unfair, (just because they work harder and can accomplish more), but it seems to me that income opportunity is more realistic than income inequality. There will always be people better at doing things than other people, and in order to retain them, employers will pay them more. That's the free market.
Imagine if all baseball players had income equality. Why should they try to excel? You'd see more bunting to save energy, bases on balls thrown by pitchers who were not going to exert themselves, and fewer spectators. There would be no incentive to excel. The game would be about as exciting as watching cheese mold. Think about it, Mr. Obama.
But Marxists don't see it that way. They believe that sharing is noble and good. Maybe it's because Karl Marx was a lazy, hygiene deficient, non-supportive father of 7 children, only 3 of whom made it to adulthood. He may have also fathered a son out of wedlock, with his housekeeper, but hey, everyone seems to be doing it on the left these days. Marx also suffered from a "weak chest" which excused him from military service. He probably didn't want to risk it anyway. "Honest Karl" used to rent apartments in the new countries he immigrated to after being kicked out of the previous one. He used aliases so the apartment owners couldn't track him down when he failed to pay rent. Naturally, communism made sense to him because he was getting the benefits from the sweat of other workers without having to work up a sweat on his own.
But liberals are not necessarily lazy; they are just simplistic in their emotional analysis of life on the dole. "If we all joined hands, and all pitched in, and sung a pleasant song that glorified the proletariat and attacked the bourgeoisie, and maybe even pitched tents in a park where we could complain about not getting our fair share, then we shall overcome."
In other words, let those who are successful, carry on their backs and sweat of their labors, be it mental or physical, those with less ambition to succeed on their own. But make no mistake, those on the left with fortunes, will never want to share those fortunes they earned in the free market. For them, Marxism and socialism are merely power grabs for them. They are not the ones they intended to share the wealth--it's the other guy.
Liberals still want to suck the teat of government at the expense of others, which is why they still suck.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment