Obama vs. MLK’s Dream

I wrote the following over six months ago:

Obama vs. MLK’s Dream

It appears that many of the commenters at Michelle Malkin’s blog, HotAir, and Texas Darlin’s blog feel the same way.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Obama vs. MLK’s Dream

  1. Jonah says:

    I don’t think you’re racist. I do find your conflation of racism and discussion about race to be rather odd, though, and I’d like to get to the bottom of it. My guess is that you just haven’t thought about race as much as some other people, and thus you believe that there’s not much to talk about, so those who talk about it are racist. But maybe I’m wrong.

    At any rate, let’s start with a few basic questions. In a host of statistics associated (positively or negatively) with the vague concept of “success” (education, income, two-parent families, health care, incarcaration, violent crime), there are statistically significant differences between different racial groups. Is this a bad thing? Is it worth worrying about? Is it worth doing something about? If so, what?

  2. Jonah,

    Socialists want equality of results.
    Throughout history, Socialism fails.

    Capitalists want equality of opportunity.
    Throughout history, Capitalism succeeds.

    Unfortunately, our country is being led down The Road to Socialism, i.e., the road to failure. It should come as no surprise that that is the Program of the Communist Party USA.

  3. Are There Really Different Races?
    No, we are all one race. One Human Race.

    But there are those who would use racism to divide us, not unify us, and lead us down The Road to Socialism.

    Obama Nation:
    Using Racism In Order To Form A More Socialist Union

  4. Jonah says:

    Just to be clear, is the answer “no, I don’t think that’s a problem?”

  5. Oh, there’s a problem, allright. The problem is the Democratic Socialists who are destroying this country.

    Many of the problems that you seem to think are racial are actually made worse by socialist practices which encourage bad behavior. It’s not anyone’s DNA that is problematic. The problem is the way people are trained to think.

    The pilgrims tried socialism their first winter in Plymouth, and half of them died. The next winter they tried capitalism, and thrived. It’s not a “racial” thing.

  6. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    Have the recent financial events given you cause to doubt capitalism as the best way to organise a society?

  7. Ryan says:

    Good point Frin.

    For the record Mr Pill (is it okay to call you that by the way? I never really asked), I am a capitalist, but there are some aspects of society that I think work best when they are socialized. Healthcare, for example, is one of those things and critical infrastructure like roads would be the other.

    As far as the recession goes, Canada has managed to avoid the sub-prime mortgage crisis due to very strict regulation of the banks and their lending policies. This is not socialism, since the banks are otherwise independent, but it is also not true capitalism.

    Sometimes there is a middle ground.

  8. Frin and Ryan,

    The undermining of the subprime industry was done by Democratic Socialists, while the ones calling for stricter regulation were the Republicans. Video Proof.

    Capitalism isn’t the problem. It’s Democratic Socialists (who completely control the Democratic Party and have made significant advances in the Republican Party, too) who are the problem.

    President Bush is not a socialist at heart, but he made the mistake of taking advice from Treasury Secretary Paulson, who is a trojan horse.

    Canada’s socialized health care system is not better than our system. People who need time-critical treatment (for cancer, etc.) are often told they must wait months (sometimes over a year) to receive treatment. Those who have the money to do so come to the U.S. for treatment.

    Capitalism >> Communism

  9. Ryan says:

    “Canada’s socialized health care system is not better than our system. People who need time-critical treatment (for cancer, etc.) are often told they must wait months (sometimes over a year) to receive treatment. Those who have the money to do so come to the U.S. for treatment.”

    That’s not entirely true. Canada’s health-care system does have some serious problems, but most people who need critical treatment get it immediately, and best of all, they get it for free. They get to recover from serious illness, or be given palliative care without having to worry about how to pay for it. That should be a basic human right.

    The people going to get treatment in the United States are getting elective surgery, or non-critical surgery, or non-standard surgery, and they are only the ones who can afford it.

    The sub-prime mortgage fiasco was caused by greedy banks who thought they could cash in, and messed up. If this was caused by socialists, why did it happen in the most capitalist country in the world, and why were the more socialist countries spared?

  10. Frin says:

    Mr Pill,

    I think you are missing Ryan’s point a little, in that it doesn’t have to be all socialist (or all capitalist). Australia is another country to look at for guidance, in that the heavy regulation of the banking sector has meant all 4 major banks in that country are still reporting major profit, and there has been no significant fallout from the subprime crisis. Australia also has a seemingly successful socialised health-care system, Social Security system, government housing etc etc.

    Regulation shouldn’t just fall on the banking sector either, and scandals such as Enron and now Bernie Madoff suggest that there is something quite rotten at the core of the American financial/corporate system. Even Alan Greenspan, hardly a doyen of socialism, recently said he “made a mistake in presuming that the self interest of organisations, specifically banks and others, was such that they were best capable of protecting their own interests.”

    This is an honest question – for it is something that I have struggled to understand when discussing this with people of a different political reasoning to me: many conservatives feel that Government is only responsible for things like defence, currencies and measures, and the rule of law. In essential services such as roads, electricity, communications, health care, education – areas where free and open competition can sometimes not readily occur due to high barriers of entry, why would you trust a corporation to perform those services instead of the government? At least with a government you have a chance to vote them out if you don’t like the job they are doing. You can’t do that with a corporation.

  11. Frin,

    I appreciate open and honest discussion, and I appreciate your comment.

    Both my wife and I have seen the inner workings of both private sector and public sector organizations. Without exception, the private sector organizations have been more responsive to the people they serve.

    Consumers “vote” every day with their money. Fair competition results in the consumer being given more and better choices, and the consumer rewards (with their money) the company that provides the best overall value (best product or service and/or best price). Even with high barriers to entry, their can be (and often is) competition.

    I believe there are very few things that the government must do, and those are spelled out in the Constitution. If it’s not in the Constitution, the federal government probably shouldn’t be doing it. The 10th Amendment says:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    I believe social needs are best met through ministries, not government programs. But if a government agency wants to take on social programs like health care then let it be state governments. The states can then “compete” with each other for residents. Over time, states that do things well will gain residents (people would want to move there) and gain increased representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College. Likewise, over time, states that fail will lose residents.

    Always keep in mind that:

    A government big enough to give you everything you want,
    is strong enough to take everything you have.

    -Thomas Jefferson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s