Comments on: A sample of Utopian leftist thought today: Part II, Richard D. Wolff and the ice cream cones

By: Linda Fox

Linda Fox — Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:16:24 +0000

Instead of picturing two children in the same family (the only place where a socialist economy works), try that thought experiment with strangers:

In the original scenario, one person buys 4 scoops for himself while an unrelated person buys 1.

If, looking at the stranger, the first person is moved to hand the ice cream vendor more money, and say: “Give him 4 scoops, too” – that is charity.

If, instead, the first person is told, “Give one of your scoops to that man, and one to me” – that is socialism (the state gets its cut).

If the first person has his cone forcibly wrested from him, ONE scoop given to the other, and the remainder kept for personal use by the enforcer – that is communism.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:28:06 +0000

We can disregard Wolf’s credentials as excessive scoops of ice cream unfairly distributed by academic capitalism. Why should he receive deference or respect for his opinions? Why should the fruits of his labor be his to claim any more than than the compensation of any non-academic?

By: aez

aez — Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:52:33 +0000

I particularly love the way his “you” and his “we” seem to jump around. Undisciplined thought.

By: OBloodyHell

OBloodyHell — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 22:50:57 +0000

Only peripherally related, but you’ll enjoy it…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enTEvon9pbw

By: glacial_erratic

glacial_erratic — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:34:17 +0000

I’m curious if Professor Wolff gives all the students in his class the same grade, regardless of effort. If not, why not?

By: sdferr

sdferr — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:59:52 +0000

"Obama saying that his hyptoethical son. . ." Happily (for me) this kicked off the following (inner speech) sound chain: high [on] pot ethical son. Ethical? Why ethical? Why, because Trayvon was busy kicking the shit out of that white Hispanic cracker, that's why.

By: thomas smith

thomas smith — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:58:00 +0000

At first, the fifth scoop always goes to the redistributor… And Wollfie is, of course, a “benevolent ruler” who deserves a scoop at the expense of the ruled – a reward for his “grace”.

Eventually though, Wolffie and his fellow redistributors require 2 scoops, 3 scoops… and then 4 and 7/8 scoops. They send their children to Swiss boarding schools while our children grow up starving and living on scraps.

Try it here, Richard. I beg you. Please try it. Time to clean house.

By: thomas smith

thomas smith — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:55:49 +0000

At first, the fifth scoop always goes to the redistributor… And Wollfie is, of course, a “benevolent ruler” who deserves a scoop at the expense of the ruled – a reward for his grace.

Eventually though, Wolffie and his fellow redistributors require 2 scoops, 3 scoops… and the 4 and 7/8 scoops. They send their children to Swiss boarding schools while our children grow up starving and living on scraps.

Try it here. I beg you. Please try it.

By: MonicaSpain

MonicaSpain — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:55:48 +0000

Also, as it has been pointed out, the word redistribution is psicological warfare that leftists use. They control lenguage and therefore reasoning. If there is a re-distribution, logically it follows a first distribution. If the second distribution attempts to make things fair, it follows a first distribution that was unfair. Id est, if you accept the expresion “redistribution of wealth” you are accepting a false premise that automatically creates false conclusions in people that are not thinkers.

There is not an unequal distribution of wealth, but an unequal creation of wealth. If you put it that way, the unequality of outcomes is obviously fair.

Of course leftists also play with the two different ways in which you can use the word distribution: description or action. It is statiscally correct to say that wealth is unequaly distributed in the planet in the same descriptive, passive way as you would say that earthquakes or mountains are unequaly distributed in the planet. The description in itself does not imply anything about fairness, but of course the concept re-distribution jumps to the second usage of the word distribution, that of human agency. They play with the ambiguities of lenguage and rightists in general do not seem to be too good fighting the culture war, or are too busy living their real, productive lives.

By: MonicaSpain

MonicaSpain — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:32:49 +0000

Leftists often pretend to ignore biological reality. For example the innate difrerences between men and women or between so called transwomen and real women. But when it comes to emotional manipulation they know how strong biology is. For example Obama saying that his hypotethical son would look like Trayvon.

In this example the profesor uses the example of parents and their children to provoque an automatic emotional response in the listeners. But it would be fun asking him wheter those parents should buy ice cream for every child in the park or just for their own children. Of course everybody knows that parents have a duty to take care of their own children, at least while they are minors, because parents are the only reason those children exist in the first place. In fact, children are the flesh and bone (or the chromosomes) of their parents. Nothing to do with the relationship between the state and its citizens. And of course nothing farther from open borders.

It would also be fun asking him about similar scenaries with slight changes. For example a couple adopts two children, one white and one black. Should the parents buy more ice cream for the black child as affirmative action, or reparations for slavery?