My Blog
My Blog
Each Nation Deserves the Government It Voted For.
Economy is in a terrible shape. Canadian oil goes to China together with American jobs. Millions of people are on unemployment and food stamps. Despite all that the polls are showing that Obama is beating each and every Republican candidate that is running for the highest office in the land. Why?
Did we reach the point of no return when more than half of the citizens of this great country became takers who receive from the pot without contributing to it? Did we reach the Democratic Party “strategic dream” of a welfare state where most of the voters want to preserve the status quo and defend their unemployment check fearing that the other guys will take it from them?
During one of the first presidential debates Ron Paul was asked a question that he dodged. “Will you treat a young man at your hospital if he doesn’t have medical insurance or money?” he was asked. On another occasion both Romney and Gingrich were asked “What will you do with twelve million illegal immigrants?” and they dodged it as well. I think Santorum said the usual mantra of “Let’s first close our borders, and then we will discuss this one…” and let it go.
Those questions are loaded, but you guys are running for the highest office in the world, so better start answering those and other difficult and loaded questions. True, it is almost impossible to give a real answer in sixty seconds.
Devil is in Details. So let’s get to those details.
There are three ways to maintain a modern society – unrestricted free markets, accomplished socialism and something in between. Unrestricted free markets is when we are free to produce anything we want, to sell our products at any price to whoever we want and keep all our earnings to ourselves (with an agreement between producers of how to finance protection of their society). The government in this social model is restricted to protect and serve. In such society charity is a moral obligation and non-profit and religious organizations run orphanages, help sick and poor and raise funds to help underprivileged. The government is not that important, and individuals have freedom to do what they want to do.
Accomplished socialism requires huge government that takes care of the population the way IT sees best. There are varieties of socialism that approach private property and freedoms in slightly different ways. Fascism leaves most private properties in the hands of the owners but tells them what to produce, where to buy raw materials and parts, whom to sell and what price to charge. It then decides which part of the earnings the producers can keep and which part they have to surrender to the government. The state becomes all powerful and an individual is insignificant.
Other varieties of socialism nationalize some, most or all production of tools and the government becomes the largest or the only employer in the state. Individuals are in total mercy of the government and are not important. The government makes all decisions and the people have to follow or else.
“In between” is a society where part of what producers make using their own tools is taken from them in order to feed the government, perform its constitutional duties and maintain the safety net for the rest of the population. The degree of this “part” and the functions of the safety net is the main question debated in this society.
As a person who lived in “well developed” socialism (The USSR), in “soft socialism” (Israel, Europe) and in semi-capitalism / semi-socialism (The US) I can say that life is by far better in the US. My conclusion is backed by millions of people who are attempting to immigrate to the US by all legal and illegal means available to them. The US as per Secretary General of the UN is the largest magnet for immigrants around the world.
In the USSR we had equal medical coverage. Equal to everyone except for the government (don’t we have the same situation here with the congress and other “important’ people excluded from the reforms in the medical field?). The government had their own clinics where they received a very different treatment, mostly with equipment and drugs imported from the capitalistic countries. Those of us who were less equal (I am quoting George Orwell of course) would be accepted into any hospital for free, and would have a thorough examination… and would be treated not with what was necessary but with what the hospital got a permission to use from the Department of Health.
Some people were treated with real drugs, some with really nice and warm words. I remember a doctor telling me “I will be glad to administer you drugs that will help, if you will bring them to me.” We both knew that the only place those drugs were available were the “closed to public” governments stores.
Did I forget to tell you that we shopped equally in dirty and smelly stores with practically no products, and the government shopped in bright, sunny, good smelling stores that only allowed people with government identification? In those stores you would be able to buy drugs from the capitalistic countries, fancy dresses and shoes, furniture every Soviet house wife dreamed about and most importantly good food.
Israel was and is very different. There are no elite stores or walls between people and the government officials. Israel is the most democratic country in the world. However if you want a CT scan, you would have to wait in line for about eight months. There are not enough equipment, period. People are not coming to the appointments because some of them die during the waiting period. In the US you have the same situation with the post office – even if you are not happy with the price or speed of the first class mail, no one could compete with the government, or he would be in jail. Yes, in jail, I am not making it up. It is not only written in the law, but was executed many times when people tried to organize their own private mail services.
In my book “Capitalism 101” I am taking complex political issues and simplifying them. Here is an example. Ten people live on an island. They together decided to pay for a doctor to come every week to their island and treat them. A young guy (let’s call him Bob) doesn’t contribute to the pot. He says I am young and don’t need any medical insurance. One day he is sick and comes to a doctor. He has no money, he didn’t pay his share for bringing the doctor to the island, but doctor treats him and charges other nine people for the services Bob received.
Bob is still refusing to pay for his medical insurance. I am young and nothing will happen to me he says. He has an accident and is again at the doctor’s office. He has no money to pay for his treatment but the doctor again treats him and charges other patients for the treatment, hospital stay and the drugs that Bob is now receiving on a daily basis… Bob still refuses to pay medical insurance and says that he is young and nothing will happen to him. He however takes the drugs from the pharmacy for free.
The nine islanders tell the doctor that if Bob will come to him again, they will not pay a single cent for his treatment. Are they right or are they are terrible selfish people who shall be called Heartless Fat Rich Cats and their money should be taken from them by a government decree?
Care for another story? Two people live on an island. One works and brings home good salary. Another is not working. The first guy offers him a job - to take care of the pool, the garden and the house, but he says that the work is too hard and the pay is too low. The “rich” guy is forced to hire help from another island. Do you think the “rich” guy is obligated to pay for the non-working guy’s rent, food, electricity, gas for his car, insurance and cable TV or not? If you answer is yes, you should vote for Obama. If “no” then vote ABO.
Two people live on an island. One works and brings home good salary, another doesn’t work. Who in your opinion shall decide what to do with the money the first one earned? If your answer is “two of them together in a democratic way” then you should vote Obama. If you answer is “the one that earned the money” then vote ABO.
It is very simple, if you want soft or hard socialism, or soft or hard fascism, if you want to get as much as possible by voting to get what others earned, then vote Obama. If you want us to continue being the most desirable country in the world, the richest, the most open society and the best opportunity for everyone, then vote ABO.
There was a time when Americans paid zero income tax. Then gradually it was legalized and began to grow. It started with one percent, then three, then five. When a notion of six percent was introduced, there was a congressman who said that this way we will soon pay ten percent. He was laughed at by his colleagues. They told him “if we will just say we are discussing ten percent, our constituents will hang us on the trees surrounding the congress.”
Gradually take their wealth from them and suck from them their power, Karl Marx was saying. Bleed them dry bit by bit and only when they will lose their money we can hit them with the fundamental change. They will be weak at this time and will not be able to put any real resistance. Wait until a major crisis hits the country. Then use this crisis to the fullest extent. Pass the laws that will re-distribute the wealth and create as many entitlement programs as possible. Once you gave something to people it will be hard to impossible to take it back. This is how you prepare revolutions.
The Soviet Union was defeated by America. If you, my fellow citizens will decide to give Obama another chance, we might end up at a point of no return. We might become the United Socialist States of America, with no America to save us.
The choice is yours.
Leon Weinstein
Author, Capitalism 101
Each Nation Deserves the Government It Voted For
Feb 8, 2012