Agree totally with your post above. Lately, the socialism-as-revival of feudalism meme is gaining traction, because it unmasks the rhetoric of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and the Frankfurt School thinkers to reveal behind it the monopolization of power and the state as an allegedly benevolent feudal lord who takes care of his serfs. There is patronage and monopoly. The Western European socialists and the upstart American socialists do it via the tax code.

Many years ago during my decade on the Left (1977-1987) I was trying to see if theoretically there was a way around this trap of totalitarian failure. I could not find it, and when I could not I gave up my academic Marxist quest. Socialism failed, fails, and ever will fail. No amount of “this time we’ll get it right!” will obviate the epistemological nonsense of its claims.

I’ll bet he already longs for the day he could just vote “present” and let it go at that.

FredHjr Says:
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I’m still trying to figure out what exactly it is that America’s largest corporations, NGO’s, and financial institutions want with remaking the U.S. into the Euro-socialist model.

I think the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals are in favor of competition until they clamber to the top of the heap; then they want to pull the ladder up behind them and cement themselves permanently into position.

I view socialism as a modern version of feudalism. We are already starting to see elective offices becoming hereditary fiefdoms. This is occurring in both parties and at the federal, state, and local levels.

Why would the people want this kind of model? Take a country like France, for example. High structural unemployment. High taxes and thick regulations. Entrepreneurship is discouraged because of this. Young people have a hard time finding jobs because it’s difficult for employers to fire people. The high taxes and the welfare state sap the life out of the economy. On top of it all, that country is being destroyed by a hostile Muslim element that is vastly out reproducing the native French.

On top of it all, a vastly bulked up welfare state is going to mean dramatic reductions in our military budget and the size of the military at a time in history when the strategic threats are growing, not diminishing.

My true fear is that congress and the administration will cajole (read “force”) the automakers into retooling to make more hybrid cars based on the current technology – this will cost billions. The current hybrid technology in this country doesn’t even give the kind of mileage that diesel does (and diesel is very clean now thanks in large part to President Bush’s administration mandating a 95% reduction in sulfur for highway diesel). Not only is the mileage less but there is the problem of disposing / recycling the batteries – a process potentially much more dangerous to the environment than the carbon emissions.

Take a look at some of the electric and hybrid technology currently being developed in Europe and Asia – it’s amazing.
Within four to eight years that technology will make the current obsolete so about the time the US automakers start rolling out the big numbers of vehicles based on the current technology no one will want them because the Asian and European manufacturers will be delivering cars based on the new technology.

If the past 20 years of the computer era has taught us anything it should be that profitability depends on continuing innovation. Business and individuals are capable of such innovation – government is not.

sorry for the long post

——–

Regarding the conversation about taxation vs regulation, just remember that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

While I’m sure the democrats have a nice list of things they’d love to tax out of existence, there will always be unintended consequences of their actions.

For instance, with cigarettes being taxed out of existence you will have numerous countereffects.

First, if the tax were raised to the point that smokers quit smoking then the “sin taxes” that are derived from commodities such as cigarettes will disappear and thereby hurt state economies that rely at least partially on those “sin taxes” for budget purposes.

Result – loss of tax revenue that will have to be made up elsewhere by raising taxes on something else.

Additionally, you will always have people that will smoke in spite of the attempt to tax cigarettes out of existence – even if they have to hide in the basement to do it.

If publicly successful in such an effort, you’d still have people engaged in black market activities to provide cigarettes at vastly inflated prices and for which government would derive no income at all.

Result – organized crime gets a boost in revenue, previously law abiding citizens become criminals engaged in now illegal activities, public acceptance of criminal behaviour becomes more acceptable to a wider variety of average citizens, loss of respect for law and government….well, think prohibition.

As to how far regulations should go, my own view is that the government should remain limited to the powers enumerated in the federal charter and any regulations should be based upon an overwhelming need that can’t be satisfied otherwise.

Unfortunately that’s a view I don’t believe is shared by the current regime.

That was one of my earliest lessons about life and how much regulation is too much. Pretty simple actually. Its any regulation where the thing you desire to control ceases to be the thing it was.