Comments on: From the Pen of David Horowitz: December 12, 2009 http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/12/12/from-the-pen-of-david-horowitz-december-12-2009/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:34:39 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ez4moi http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/12/12/from-the-pen-of-david-horowitz-december-12-2009/#comment-33591 Ez4moi Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:45:41 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=18164#comment-33591 When confronted by their historical failures, socialists are asked why do you think it'll succeed this time? The answer is always that the right people have not tried it yet. Leftists rightly see socialism as a mechanism to project power. It is heady to control peoples' lives. When confronted by their historical failures, socialists are asked why do you think it’ll succeed this time? The answer is always that the right people have not tried it yet.

Leftists rightly see socialism as a mechanism to project power. It is heady to control peoples’ lives.

]]> By: Cabby - AZ http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/12/12/from-the-pen-of-david-horowitz-december-12-2009/#comment-33339 Cabby - AZ Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:44:18 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=18164#comment-33339 Although the early Christians (book of Acts in the Bible) were completely sincere in their desire to "have all things in common" to promote the general good and well-being of their group, this altruistic effort did not result in their betterment. Rather, it produced a general, overall poverty condition. So even under the best of circumstances socialism has failed and has continued to do so throughout the centuries when ever practiced. Why, under the sun does society seem determined to repeat the mistakes of the past? There is an old proverb which says, "He who dwells on the past will lose an eye; he who forgets the past will lose both eyes." Although the early Christians (book of Acts in the Bible) were completely
sincere in their desire to “have all things in common” to promote the
general good and well-being of their group, this altruistic effort did not
result in their betterment. Rather, it produced a general, overall
poverty condition. So even under the best of circumstances socialism
has failed and has continued to do so throughout the centuries when
ever practiced. Why, under the sun does society seem determined to
repeat the mistakes of the past? There is an old proverb which says, “He
who dwells on the past will lose an eye; he who forgets the past will lose
both eyes.”

]]> By: Jackie http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/12/12/from-the-pen-of-david-horowitz-december-12-2009/#comment-33321 Jackie Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:12:18 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=18164#comment-33321 I actually cried when the Supreme Court decision allowing seizure of private property for other private use was announced. To me, it was the final nail in the coffin for the personal right to property and essentially to equal protection for the individual. It was a blatant nose-thumbing to the Constitution, and allows for the "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine" engine of the ideology of the left to chew up and spit out the individual with abandon. The freedom to accumulate property and its use falls inevitably to the nebulous "other" who may decide that your use of it is best decided by someone who knows better. God save the Republic, because the masses hardly seem to give a damn. I actually cried when the Supreme Court decision allowing seizure of private property for other private use was announced. To me, it was the final nail in the coffin for the personal right to property and essentially to equal protection for the individual. It was a blatant nose-thumbing to the Constitution, and allows for the “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine” engine of the ideology of the left to chew up and spit out the individual with abandon. The freedom to accumulate property and its use falls inevitably to the nebulous “other” who may decide that your use of it is best decided by someone who knows better. God save the Republic, because the masses hardly seem to give a damn.

]]> By: Walt http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/12/12/from-the-pen-of-david-horowitz-december-12-2009/#comment-33065 Walt Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:09:52 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=18164#comment-33065 The problem of motivation comes up when the notion of private property is eliminated. In a collectivity, what incentive does an individual have to do anything above and beyond what his fellows do? Moral approval and ribbons will not have much of an impact for long. In he end, even socialist societies are forced to reintroduce inequality(incentives)to forestall or contain economic torpor. Unfortunately, this is an inefficient work around that only partially makes up for the loss individual initiative or one's ability to acquire private property. The problem of motivation comes up when the notion of private property is eliminated. In a collectivity, what incentive does an individual have to do anything above and beyond what his fellows do? Moral approval and ribbons will not have much of an impact for long. In he end, even socialist societies are forced to reintroduce inequality(incentives)to forestall or contain economic torpor. Unfortunately, this is an inefficient work around that only partially makes up for the loss individual initiative or one’s ability to acquire private property.

]]> By: Cas Balicki http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/12/12/from-the-pen-of-david-horowitz-december-12-2009/#comment-33020 Cas Balicki Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:53:25 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=18164#comment-33020 There is more to the idea of private property than physical property. In its oldest sense property translates to “real property” or land, which in turn means fences, prohibited access, and clearly defined boundaries. The socialist ideal of equality of outcome supersedes any personal rights, including the right to own property. The justification for this usurpation of rights is always the ill defined common good. That the common good might not square with what is good for an individual is reconciled by the supposed benefits derived by the many at the expense of the few. This socialist justification I would argue is wrong both practically and metaphorically. I would also argue that the metaphorical injustice done by the “socialist ideal” far outweighs the damage done on the practical level. On a practical level the socialist impulse runs up against a natural, albeit debatable, bound, and that is the level at which taxation morphs into confiscation. We can all agree immediately on two points regarding this taxation/confiscation boundary, it exists and it is different for each individual. Leaving aside the very real potential for the destruction of personal initiative, this is ultimately an argument over money, which is to say much less important than the metaphorical argument. As an aside, I would also add that this argument over mere money is what allows the majority to extort from the individual as it does for money’s importance is all too easily dismissed when compared to other supposedly more fulfilling aspects of life. On a metaphorical level, trespass devalues all personal rights in direct proportion to the import of the right being infringed. If a property owner has no right to safeguard his possessions his right to bar more subtle intrusion is correspondingly weakened. The proof of this weakening of personal rights can be seen in the debate over issues such as card check legislation that unions would have enacted. The common good, which is to say the rights of the union, is deemed so important that mere conscience must be sacrificed. To argue against such a compromise in a union environment would be the equivalent of biting the hand that feeds. That an individual might see a potential pay raise for union membership as a personal threat to his income would in such an environment be seen as a threat to the collective. Yet if recent events at GM and Chrysler prove anything it is precisely this fact. <i>The Black Book of Communism</i> proves some one hundred million times over that the only way the collective can be kept from killing is by holding the rights of the individual sacred, but to do this is anathema to the socialist. There is more to the idea of private property than physical property. In its oldest sense property translates to “real property” or land, which in turn means fences, prohibited access, and clearly defined boundaries. The socialist ideal of equality of outcome supersedes any personal rights, including the right to own property. The justification for this usurpation of rights is always the ill defined common good. That the common good might not square with what is good for an individual is reconciled by the supposed benefits derived by the many at the expense of the few. This socialist justification I would argue is wrong both practically and metaphorically. I would also argue that the metaphorical injustice done by the “socialist ideal” far outweighs the damage done on the practical level.

On a practical level the socialist impulse runs up against a natural, albeit debatable, bound, and that is the level at which taxation morphs into confiscation. We can all agree immediately on two points regarding this taxation/confiscation boundary, it exists and it is different for each individual. Leaving aside the very real potential for the destruction of personal initiative, this is ultimately an argument over money, which is to say much less important than the metaphorical argument. As an aside, I would also add that this argument over mere money is what allows the majority to extort from the individual as it does for money’s importance is all too easily dismissed when compared to other supposedly more fulfilling aspects of life.

On a metaphorical level, trespass devalues all personal rights in direct proportion to the import of the right being infringed. If a property owner has no right to safeguard his possessions his right to bar more subtle intrusion is correspondingly weakened. The proof of this weakening of personal rights can be seen in the debate over issues such as card check legislation that unions would have enacted. The common good, which is to say the rights of the union, is deemed so important that mere conscience must be sacrificed. To argue against such a compromise in a union environment would be the equivalent of biting the hand that feeds. That an individual might see a potential pay raise for union membership as a personal threat to his income would in such an environment be seen as a threat to the collective. Yet if recent events at GM and Chrysler prove anything it is precisely this fact.

The Black Book of Communism proves some one hundred million times over that the only way the collective can be kept from killing is by holding the rights of the individual sacred, but to do this is anathema to the socialist.

]]> By: Brad http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/12/12/from-the-pen-of-david-horowitz-december-12-2009/#comment-33014 Brad Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:54:11 +0000 http://newsrealblog.com/?p=18164#comment-33014 Spurred on by zeal for their independent yet aligned causes, and hatred for the opposition, they very likely "will come back into the fold," like the sheep they are. Or, is that lemming? Spurred on by zeal for their independent yet aligned causes, and hatred for the opposition, they very likely “will come back into the fold,” like the sheep they are. Or, is that lemming?

]]>