Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ben Shapiro at U. Minnesota: ‘Socialism is Tyranny’

Ben Shapiro at U. Minnesota: ‘Socialism is Tyranny’

“The notion of socialism is that you do not own your own freedom”

https://youtu.be/pqiAx5QNWR0

Conservative author and activist Ben Shapiro spoke at the University of Minnesota this week, despite protests from campus progressives. During his talk, he offered a sharp distinction between socialism and capitalism.

As usual, a massive security presence was required for the event.

Anders Hagstrom reports at the Daily Caller:

Hundreds Of Police Officers Protect Audience At Ben Shapiro’s St. Paul Speech

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro’s appearance at the University of Minnesota went off without incident Monday night, thanks to 100 cops who surrounded the lecture hall with concrete barriers.

Dozens of protesters gathered outside the lecture hall in an attempt to prevent people from attending, but they were held back by police, City Pages reported Tuesday. The largest obstacle to attendance, however, was the venue itself. U of M students requested a larger event venue for Shapiro’s speech, but the administration relegated him to the smaller 400-person venue after students protested and claimed he was a white nationalist. As a result, there wasn’t enough room for many of the students who wished to attend.

“We’re besieged because of our views,” Abdi Mohamed told, who was turned away from the venue for lack of space, told City Pages. “We have to have this militaristic guard just to share a couple opinions.”

Shapiro noted that many college-aged people today seem to want socialism. But as he pointed out, socialism is the opposite of freedom.

From the FOX News Insider:

‘Socialism Itself Is Tyranny’: Shapiro Addresses MN College Students Amid Protests

In his speech, Shapiro touched on a number of subjects, including the “tyranny” of socialism.

“Capitalism is good because capitalism is freedom,” Shapiro argued. “Socialism is bad because socialism is tyranny. Not ‘it’s an aspect of tyranny.’ Socialism itself is tyranny.”

He explained that the core principle of socialism is that an individual’s labor is owed to society.

“The notion of socialism is that you do not own your own freedom, you do not own your own time, you do not own your own labor, you do not own your own work, you do not own the products of your own work,” Shapiro said.

He said the notion of capitalism, on the other hand, is that you own all of those things and must engage in a free exchange with others who do not owe you anything.

Watch the video below:

We shouldn’t be surprised that so many young people today find socialism appealing. They have been told all their lives that everything must be fair. Now they are being told by people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren that college should be free and that poverty is the fault of people who have more wealth than others.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Childhood might be considered a form of socialism (if not communism) and With protracted “childhood” extending deeper into what was formally adulthood , why wouldn’t some want this perceived easy path in life? It is learned misbehavior.

    YellowGrifterInChief in reply to alaskabob. | March 2, 2018 at 8:58 am

    Under both socialism and capitalism the vast majority of people work for a boss. The boss is the parent. 100 years ago, before we added a component of socialism to our system, bosses could monitor whether you went to church, could inspect your home and even require you to buy from the company store. We have moderated those gross violations of our liberty with changes in social mores, unions and government. The 40 hour week was not because capitalism wanted it: “If you don’t come in on Sunday, don’t come in on Monday”.

    Why would being controlled by an organization that cares only about profit ( essentially a sociopath) be better than democratic socialism as practiced in Nordic countries like Norway and Denmark?

    I understand that many people who comment here are more influenced by theory than fact. The only history they are site is Russian Communism and its off-shoots. That is not socialism.

      “That is not socialism”. No, that would be the National Socialist German Workers Party AKA the Nazis.

      “Why would being controlled by an organization that cares only about profit ( essentially a sociopath) …”

      Your strawman exposes your BS.

      “The boss is the parent.”

      I’ll stop ingesting your pablum right there. As usual, you are completely full of it. An employee and an employer engage in a voluntary exchange of services for payment. Nothing more, nothing less. Good God, grow up and take some responsibility for yourself and your actions.

      So you think companies are “sociopaths” and purely driven by profit motive, huh? But I bet you spew the party line on the “gender wage gap” don’t ya? Then why don’t companies employ only women if they’re so cheap to hire?

        YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Paul. | March 2, 2018 at 10:51 am

        ‘Voluntary’. Nice theory.

        20 Years ago my firm received an offer of work from IBM. I met with the manager after receiving the proposed contract and said that I would like some minor changes. He laughed. The facility in which we were speaking had 5000 workers and multiple layers of management. He said that no one on site had the authority to change one word of the contract. In fact, it would need to go up multiple layers at IBM headquarters.

        The imbalance in power is enormous. It is only voluntary if you can afford to say no.

        Granted I was providing excellent, but not extraordinary, talent. If you are truly brilliant you might be able to negotiate on something like equal terms. But most people, by definition, are not brilliant.

        Your theory belongs in one of them there ivory tower lib institutions like Harvard.

          IBM did not force you to take the job. It was a ” take it or leave it ” proposition. You had a right to walk away. You didn’t get the job…maybe their loss also. Socialism requires people being hired who disagree?

          Socialism is just a few doors up from communism. As Lenin wrote…the path to communism is through trade unionism.

          You had the choice to find work elsewhere, start your own company, work freelance, etc. Yes, your work there was voluntary.

          “‘Voluntary’. Nice theory.”

          Yes, it is a nice theory.

          It’s a nice theory because it comports more to reality than anything you’ve spat out on here.

          “20 Years ago my firm received an offer of work from IBM. -”

          Translation: OH BOO HOO!

          Woe is me, because my VOLUNTARILY seeking a job at Someone Else’s Company involved accepting their terms of employment, and very little ability to change them.

          And thus I’m going to try and claim this somehow represents the absence of a voluntary element in economics RATHER THAN A REPRESENTATION OF IT.

          Because you know, it’s not like you had a huge amount of power to tell a 16th century slave driver in Mesopotamia or the Caribbean Islands- or a worker in a “Marxist Socialist” state- “I want to change some terms of my employment” at all, or “I want to quit.”

          “The imbalance in power is enormous.”

          Yes, it is. But that isn’t surprising.

          After all, THEY ARE THERE PROVIDING YOU THE JOB. They have a source of employment that will continue to exist tomorrow whether or not you agree to it or not.

          They can realistically wager that you are coming to seek work From Them. And that if you say no, they can go and find someone else who will happily Eat Your Lunch.

          They might be Wrong on that wager, as major strikes or boycotts show. But they’re probably not.

          That’s because historically, labor is a *Buyer’s Market.*

          But it isn’t always that way, and it doesn’t mean there aren’t situations where you can make the employers come begging on their hands and knees for you. Heck, even for the rank and file unskilled farmer.

          There’s a reason why wages rose massively after the Black Death, and why even with the force of Law and Terror trying to limit them in ways unthinkable in any capitalist system for the past 200 years most towns, lords, and so on caved and kept shifting their terms of employment to be more favorable.

          This is simply how economics works.

          “It is only voluntary if you can afford to say no.”

          No, it’s always voluntary.

          Not having it be voluntary is being dragged into a slave galley and forced to work their hours on their terms or being thrown overboard to your death.

          What this really means is It’s Voluntary, but you don’t want to consider it as such because *voluntarily* picking one choice results in Bad or Unfortunate things happening.

          And this is yet another reason why I disdain socialism because it winds up cheapening free will and human agency like it does almost everything else.

          “Granted I was providing excellent, but not extraordinary, talent. If you are truly brilliant you might be able to negotiate on something like equal terms. But most people, by definition, are not brilliant.”

          Which goes back to the Buyer’s Market issue. And how almost every market for labor in most parts of history is a Bear Market.

          You want to negotiate on equal terms when you’re just excellent or even below? Find the right market and right situation. Again, you had Not-even-Excellent farm workers in the aftermath of the Black Death being able to use their negotiating power to great effect because they realized the lords couldn’t go just anywhere and pick up anyone.

          Unfortunately, such situations have Never been common and are now even less so.

          “Your theory belongs in one of them there ivory tower lib institutions like Harvard.”

          This is ironic, considering your rhetoric and writing looks like some of the stuff I’ve seen shoved out of the sphincters of Ivory Tower Socialists.

          Turtler, if you’re gonna do that you’ll need to bring your own mop and bucket.

        YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Paul. | March 2, 2018 at 11:20 am

        Ever heard of Lilly Ledbetter?

          Some REALLY stupid laws were passed during that brief period of time that Obama was POTUS and the Dims controlled both houses of Congress. This is one example. Obamacare is another. So what’s your point? That Dims are stupid and can’t grasp basic economics or math?

      Where do you live? If you are here in America I suggest you immigrate to Denmark or Norway and bathe yourself in their wonderful socialism. This is America, the bastion of capitalism, and I ask politely for you to thank God for your freedom to whine.

        YellowGrifterInChief in reply to scooterjay. | March 2, 2018 at 11:02 am

        I should thank some imaginary supernatural being for capitalism? Isn’t the bible all about feudalism.

        Ever heard of the divine right of kings? When did Jesus become a capitalist?

        There is no need for me to go elsewhere. I was born here. I am a citizen here. This country is famous for taking some of the best ideas in the world along with inventing them. I have relatives in Canada and they are bemused at the idea that their healthcare system is so terrible. No I don’t plan on moving there, either.

          The lure of Socialism is that everybody can be on the best side of “Divine Right of Kings” .. who ever seeks the job of “serf”

          YellowGrifterInChief
          When you show yourself to be so profoundly ignorant of the content of the Bible, people conclude that you are likely to be similarly ignorant of the other topics you speak of.

          Since you refer to God as “imaginary”, you reveal that you are in rebellion against him since the existence of God is something which is impossible to not know.

          What do you think God did to you which causes you to hate him?

          “I should thank some imaginary supernatural being for capitalism?”

          Probably.

          ” Isn’t the bible all about feudalism.”

          Answer: NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

          Because contrary to some historically and theologically illiterate morons (such as yourself), feudalism does not mean “any situation with a King and a bunch of nobility.”

          Actual feudalism as we’d think of it was a product of the LATE Roman Empire and particularly its’ breakdown. When society had to rebuild itself from the ashes and largely did so under this sort of highly stratified system in which most parts of society exchanged services for protection and support. And in which contrary to what people tend to thought, the Lord usually had obligations to those peasants tilling his fields like they did to him.

          (Those obligations were not EQUAL mind, but they existed andat least in theory went both ways).

          This kind of system Did Not Exist in the Bronze Age, and only very crude similarities with it existed in places like the Persian Empire and Archaic Greece.

          Most of the Bible takes place in a typical Middle Eastern polity, either a Theocracy (like during the Books of Judges) or an Absolute Monarchy (unusually moderated by the Prophets).

          The proper comparisons are to places like Ur, Akkad, and Egypt, not to Agenvin England or the Holy Roman Empire.

          “Ever heard of the divine right of kings?”

          Yeah, I have.

          It notably DOES NOT APPEAR like it’s usually formulated in the Bible. In part because God is an active player with an active servant (the Prophet).

          God opposes attempts to institute a monarchy except by Popular demand, and when he does so he retains the right to crown a King but also to *take that crown away and give it to someone else.*

          And in fact the Bible treats Kingship as something to be looked at VERY SUSPICIOUSLY, has all Kings be sinners, and most of them be holding the office unjustly.

          This is why for every King David there is Abimelech, Herod, Herod Antipas, Pharoah, and so on.

          “When did Jesus become a capitalist?”

          You really haven’t read the Bible, have you Nimrod?

          Study Matthew:25, the Parable of Talents, Nimrod.

          Which quite LITERALLY talks about how to ethically invest one’s Capital in the marketplace.

          To cite just one example.

          This is a reason why ignorant socialist atheists should not try and lecture people on the Bible or sociology.

          “There is no need for me to go elsewhere.”

          The fact that you deem there to be No Need underlines how shallow your socialist beliefs are compared to the likes of-say- Marx and his rivals.

          “I was born here. I am a citizen here.”

          Indeed.

          ” This country is famous for taking some of the best ideas in the world along with inventing them. ”

          And rejecting the trash.

          Like Socialists.

          “I have relatives in Canada and they are bemused at the idea that their healthcare system is so terrible.”

          Take your relatives and`try to get in a Canadian clinic during the weekend.

          Or study who makes their dialysis machines.

          Or have a nice, sweet family movie time. “Invasion of the Barbarians”, made by a left of center Quebecois film director about the Canadian Health Care system and Medical Tourism to the US.

          Or just have them ask my Mom, who helped package much of the surplus equipment we had on hand in California so it could be FLOWN UP to Canada on long term borrowing agreemente because the Canadian health care system doesn’t allocate enough money to produce enough modern equipment, let alone do R&D into new ones on the scale the US does.

          “No I don’t plan on moving there, either.”

          Then you have chosen your lot and done so *Voluntarily.*

          And your future kvetching on the matter will be factored in as such.

      We also comment about that Socialist haven called Venezuela.
      While Hugo Chavez’s daughter walked away with billions of dollars (now in offshore banks) and Nicolás Maduro remains physically “prosperous”, most Venezuelans are on the “Socialist diet” and have lost on average 24 pounds in the last year.

      … but I’m sure this isn’t Socialism either, because .. failure

      .. Oh look, they are delaying the next election

      And so we get a dishonest hack attempting to whitewash Socialism…

      “Under both socialism and capitalism the vast majority of people work for a boss.”

      Under essentially Every Form of Social Organization that Has Ever Been Tried, the vast majority of people work for an authority. Whether it’s the Boss, the Chief, the Monarch (or a peer working underneath the monarch), a leader, a General Secretary, a Parent, a Priest-Lord, or the like.

      Even if pie-in-the-sky “Real Socialism” actually happened, that would not be changed. Only altered. Unless you happen to think that the

      The matter is how one determines how many leaders there are, what powers the yhave, and what powers the average person has over them. Unless you happen to think that human nature would change so drastically that people would stop taking pointers from your co-worker to the right who is a bit smarter, has been at the job longer, and/or understands the job better than you currently do.

      (Though considering how most Socialist theory and philosophy- especially since most of it around today descends from Marx- talk about the introduction of Socialism as all but REQUIRING a fundamental change in human society and human psychology, I can believe Marx, Engels, and a lot of their followers, allies, and contemproary rivals really do imagine a world in which such a thing ceases to be).

      ” The boss is the parent. 100 years ago, before we added a component of socialism to our system,”

      Hogwash. Here we get into te usual, stupid attempt to conflate “Socialism” as meaning “something generic that is good.”

      This is wrong on several levels.

      Socialism is- simply put- the communal ownership of the means of production by either the public at large *or* a designated body (supposedly) appointed by the public at large. All attempts to associate it with other things-

      In fact, if we HAD introduced “elements of socialism” to our system, we would have expected the pushiness you- not unjustly- complain about to ACCELERATE. Because suddenly the labor of an individual worker is no longer Their Own.

      It is held in communal trust to the rest of society and thus that person becomes subservient to The Rest of Society. And the Rest of Society sure as heck would want to know if that man is doing “his fare share.”

      Which is why actual Socialist or self-declared Socialist states (which notably DOES NOT include the Capitalist, Market economies of Scandinavia that you and morons like Bernie Sanders try to claim) the regime- that being Your Boss- DO monitor you.

      They monitor if you go to church or not.

      They monitor what you say in your “free time” or not.

      They monito what you have at home and have the authority to either search it or tap someone who can.

      And they ABSOLUTELY can require you to not just buy from the company store, but to conduct all your financial activities within communally operated or managed organs. This is why “Black Marketeers” and “Profiteers” routinely get villified.

      This is the real face of Socialism, and what Communal Ownership of the Means of Production actually requires.

      All encompassing management of every facet of society.

      The difference you so conveniently leave out is that the old Gilded Age Barons had limits on what power they had. They could certainly abuse that power giddily, but they had limited power to FORCE you to take a job.

      They had limited power to change the terms of the contract you signed.

      And while they could order you to buy from a company store they had

      A: No power to determine what or where you sold,

      and

      B: Limited power to enforce the ability to buy.

      A truly Socialist system does.

      “We have moderated those gross violations of our liberty with changes in social mores, unions and government.”

      No, you moderated those gross violations of your liberty with exercise of the pre-existing liberty.

      And NOT the introduction of aspects of Socialism, as you have tried to claim.

      ” The 40 hour week was not because capitalism wanted it:”

      Actually, it came about because most of the actors in the Capitalist System wanted it, or at the very least Wanted It more than widespread labor hemorraging, protests, and the violent murder of Scabs.

      But hey, DETAILS!

      ” “If you don’t come in on Sunday, don’t come in on Monday”.”

      As is appropriate.

      And still is.

      “Why would being controlled by an organization that cares only about profit ( essentially a sociopath)”

      This is another familiar trait I’ve seen among Socialist apologists: abuse of psychitatric terminology in a (pathologically dishonest and frankly incorrect) attempt to guilt trip people.

      NEWSFLASH NIMROD: There’s a reason why Mental conditions are diagnosed on an INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, not an ORGANIZATIONAL one.

      You can no more diagnose a company or other organization within a society- let alone the society as a whole- with a condition meant to be applied INDIVIDUALLY than you can claim a HACKEY SACK TEAM composed of one chipper optimist and one gloomy Eeyore as having BI-POLAR DISORDER!

      Because actual, professional medical practitioners- like those I worked with during my volunteer hours and the people who wrote the literature I did- understood that People are Distinct from the groups they may create.

      And that groups of people function differently from people individually.

      The individual psychoses of the person can CERTAINLY affect how the overall organization does. There’s a reason why National Socialism and its’ evolution were shaped by Der Fuhrer’s Malignant Narcisism, why a disturbing number of CEOs are Psychopaths, and why most of the “Old Bolsheviks” had at least one anti-social disorder.

      (And why old Karl Marx himself showed many of the traits of psychopathy even if he probably wasn’t an actual, diagnoseable one).

      But these are cases of the Individual’s psychoses affecting the group.

      But even if we moved on from That Fundamental Failure, it simply isn’t true.

      For one, you’d be hard pressed to find many Capitalists or those partaking in it as caring only about Profit. And those people are more likely to be Obsessive-Compulsives like spoon hoarders or the Psychos involved.

      This is because profit in and of itself is a tool. A tool by which society- through common consensus- manipulates its’ economy.

      You don’t have many people (not NO people, but not many) who go to work saying they want the collection of dead, thinly sliced wood with creative pictures on them to get bigger. They tend to focus on the INSTRUMENTALIZATION of those things.

      What they believe those bills can do for Them when used. Such as putting their kids through school, keeping the heat on, saving for retirement, or blowing it all on a stress killing party.

      This holds true about whether the person goes to work by the New York Underground or a private jet.

      So even on the illiterate, inaccurate terminology you’ve chosen your claims are still wrong.

      Secondly, it’s worth noting that psychopathy is not the open ended pursuit of one goal to the exclusion of all others regardless of the costs.

      Most psychopaths tend to not follow profit to the exclusion of all others. Most psychopaths tend not to follow any one thing at all. They are thrill seekers with short memories, little skill at rationalization, and extremely poor impulse control. The ones in the CEO’s chair or in command of totalitarian security agencies just are somewhat higher functioning than their kin.

      “be better than democratic socialism as practiced in Nordic countries like Norway and Denmark?”

      Firstly nimrod:

      “Democratic socialism as practiced in Nordic countries like Norway and Denmark” is a nonsequitor. It’s a Myth.

      It doesn’t exist, but it has been peddled as existing by another totalitarian, economic illiterate named Bernie Sanders (who has approximately 0% exposure to the countries he was talking about, unlike the USSR, Sandinista Nicaragua, Chavista Venezuela, and Castro’s Cuba).

      He was PUBLICALLY B*TCHED OUT FOR THIS by the ACTUAL NORDIC COUNTRIES and their governments, who pointed out that their systems are Market Economies, not Socialist ones, democratic or not.

      It’s true that there are many parties that declare themselves as Socialist in the Nordic countries and that they are notably more popular and powerful than in the US. And they have had some power in reshaping the market economy and government to acocunt for what they lobby them.

      But that doesn’t make these societies Not Market Economies oro Socialist ones.

      And secondly: The answer would be Yes.

      Why?

      Because the United States in effect gives MASSIVE SUBSIDIES to these nations across most fields, ESPECIALLY in the bulk of what would be Defense Spending, and Medical R&D.

      Which means that the budgets these governments and parties have to work with are ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED. We allow them to live in a dreamland of excessive entitlements and social spending because they can do so knowing that the Russian Army won’t take advantage of their weakness and cross the borderto conquer parts of their country like it tried to in the 18th and early 19th century, and sought to under Lenin’s leadership in the early 20th century.

      We provide the boots on the ground and we provide the dialysis machines so that Oslo and Stockholm and so on don’t have to.

      Now if you wanted an actual FAIRER examination, you’d need to start deducting the NATO boon and start figuring out how these states would conduct themselves when fulfilling the Bare Minimum Requirements of the social contract, such as defense.

      And the result is almost unanamously “Not Good.”

      These nations have struggled to provide adequate defense and research for Themselves throughout the modern era. IN ADDITION to the manifest failures of these states to ensure public peace as Malmo and Oslo are now indicators of or to defend against infiltrating threats, there’s the fact that Sweden, Norway, and Finland ALL struggled to maintain public defenses and a technological base able to DETER aggressors from their borders throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

      Not to *win outright* mind you, but merely to make it More Trouble Than It Was Worth to outright conquer.

      And they almost uniformly failed.

      Denmark in fact had all but given up even trying prior to NATO and limited itself to what was literally called “Defenceless Neutrality”, in effect stating that the government had even Stopped Caring about the fact that a hostile power could sweep through the country and occupy it like the Germans had done in 1864.

      While Sweden, Norway, and Finland all tried to muster their resources, climate, and human capital to deter invasion and protect their independence. And only two of them came close to being successful.

      And even in the cases of Finland and Sweden there is a massive asterisk next to those efforts when you realized that the attempts to cobble together enough resources for the common defense in order to make sure the other guys didn’t want to bother….was aided by strategically CAVING to “those guys” and giving them what they wanted even at the price of limiting national independence and Human Liberty like you claim you are so concerned about.

      This was why Sweden bent itself into a pretzel appeasing the NSDAP and the USSR. This is why Finland after WWII coined the term “Finlandization” and saw ACTUAL cases of Russian interference in its’ elections that even the most extravagent TrumPutin conspiracy theory cannot approach.

      The Nordic Countries since the end of WWII have been sheltered by geographical and geopolitical location, modern ideology, and a lucky choice of protector from some of the cold realities of what it takes to make a truly self-sustaining state.

      They are the equivalent of the Galapagos Islands with a host of exotic, rare, and generally pleasant species that would not have survived *Three Generations* in the more rough and tumble, tootha nd claw mainland.

      And now we are seeing that even THESE benefits are not enough to keep the gravy train good times going indefinitely, as the same historical forces that helped create the Western Alliance they have benefited from have now brought armies of hostile migrants to their shores.

      The Nordic countries must adapt or they will be crippled or killed. And so far they have resoundingly FAILED at that.

      “I understand that many people who comment here are more influenced by theory than fact.”

      Ironically, you’re in the worst of all worlds, YellowGrifter.

      You’re more influenced by theory than fact, but *your understanding of the theory Sucks.*

      As shown by you describing Socialism in a way that none of the canonical socialist (note: not just Marxist) thinkers would.

      ” The only history they are site is Russian Communism and its off-shoots. That is not socialism.”

      A: That is Factually false, as one of the people replying to you showed.

      and

      B: Actually, that is Exactly what Marxian Socialism as defined by M, E, and L was. “Lower Form” Socialism in which a representative body of the revolutionary classes seized absolute power in order to reorganize society. which was supposed to give way to Communism proper, the supposed Classless Utopia.

      Now is their vision of Socialism the Only kind of Socialism? No. But it IS one.

      You see, this is why I mock you for talking about Theory. Because you DON’T UNDERSTAND the theory.

      Much like Bernie Sanders does not, which is why you fall into identical pitfalls he does. The thing is I think Bernie’s marginally smarter than you because I think he knows full well what he supports and that’s why he spent more time in Soviet Tver than in Bologna or Stockholm or other centers for the “Democratic Socialists.”

        Evil Otto in reply to Turtler. | March 4, 2018 at 7:30 am

        Turtler, I salute you. Unfortunately, you can never get through to a socialist like Yellow because you are arguing against his religion, but well done none the less.

The never ending war between socialism and capitalism seems to be the struggle between Cain and Able in modern times.

Where “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” actually works is in a loving family where discipline includes properly determining what “from each according to his ability” looks like. Socialism ignores that society’s problems come from selfish human nature, not some external structure. Capitalism (I prefer the term “free enterprise”) properly carried out seeks to harness human self interest for the benefit of all. Should be learned in elementary school rather than the “school of hard knocks.”

    YellowGrifterInChief in reply to jlronning. | March 2, 2018 at 8:41 am

    Capitalism solves the problem of selfishness? That is rich (pun intended).

      In a free market, each individual acting in his/her self interest maximizes utility for both the individual and the society as a whole. It’s an amazing idea… we don’t need centralized planning by “the best men” for almost anything at all!

      Free markets have created more wealth, lifted more people out of poverty and improved the life spans and standard of living for more people than all the other systems combined.

      “Capitalism solves the problem of selfishness? That is rich (pun intended).”

      No, your incompetent straw manning is Rich. Which makes it much richer than a society that actually adopted the policies you shill for.

      No Chowderhead, jlronning’s post DOES NOT Claim that Capitalism “solves the problem of selfishness.” Which is fortunate because if it had I would have to criticize him for it, because I do not see the problem of human selfishness being solved by humans.

      What he DOES claim is that Capitalism *harnesses* human self-interest and selfishness. Which is unquestionably true. As does the fact that it tends to work to the common benefit, as the Green Revolution and medical research shows.

      No, capitalism ACCEPTS human greed, harnesses it. It doesn’t pretend it can be abolished.

    DaveGinOly in reply to jlronning. | March 2, 2018 at 6:53 pm

    “School of hard knocks”

    Class is in session in Venezuela.

You will want to give a close listen to Ben here…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10chth9Af5c

    Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2018 at 11:01 am

    …or you could be the kind of moral cowards who down-vote posts which only offer information.

    Up to you…

    Paul in reply to Ragspierre. | March 2, 2018 at 1:05 pm

    Facts don’t care about anybody’s feelings

    VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | March 3, 2018 at 5:59 am

    Rags rote:
    or you could be the kind of moral cowards who down-vote posts which only offer information.

    You say the only reason someone would downvote you is because they are ‘moral cowards’. How megalomaniacal of you to ignore the possibilities that they disagree with the information you presented or because they are expressing disgust at your constant haughty preaching.

    The hubris you show by posting a link to a 45 minute video and telling us ‘You will want to give a close listen to Ben here…‘ has a lot more to do with the downvotes you got than anyone’s cowardice. Like we have nothing better to do than waste our time figuring out which 30 secs your mind found interesting.

    That’s a rational view so I expect you to reject it.

      Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | March 3, 2018 at 8:47 am

      VaPigman frothed…

      Golly, Piglet, it’s hard to know if you address me or Mike LaChance here.

      When I offer a link to some information, you’re free to ignore it. You’re free to take exception to its content. You’re even free to mindlessly condemn me for offering it in true Stalinist ThoughtPolicing mode.

      You default to the hind-most. Always.

      Heh…!!!

        VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2018 at 3:05 am

        rags rote:
        Golly, Piglet, it’s hard to know if you address me or Mike LaChance here.

        No one with a functioning brain found it hard to know who I was addressing.

        When I offer a link to some information, you’re free to ignore it. You’re free to take exception to its content. You’re even free to mindlessly condemn me for offering it in true Stalinist ThoughtPolicing mode.

        The lie in your statement is that you went on, ‘in true Stalinist ThoughtPolicing mode’, to call them ‘moral cowards’ for disagreeing with you. I attacked your lie. Anyone with a functioning brain figured that out, so you deflection failed.

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | March 4, 2018 at 4:41 am

          You’re just like the idiots trying to silence Shapiro. Same exact impulse, Piglet.

          Thanks for showing your stripe! Again…

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | March 4, 2018 at 4:47 am

          “The lie in your statement is that you went on, ‘in true Stalinist ThoughtPolicing mode’, to call them ‘moral cowards’ for disagreeing with you. I attacked your lie.”

          But YOUR lie, liar, is that nobody “disagreed with me”. I have disagreements with people all time in perfect civility. I don’t lay back when attached, however.

          As you have noticed, Piglet. You are a moral coward, and so are your fellow cultists here.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | March 4, 2018 at 5:36 am

          rags rote:
          But YOUR lie, liar, is that nobody “disagreed with me”

          They disagreed with your post and expressed their disagreement as a down vote. For that you called them ‘moral cowards’. Why do you continue to lie about it when the facts are plain as day?

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | March 4, 2018 at 6:03 am

          You’re just like the idiots trying to silence Shapiro. Same exact impulse, Piglet.

          Thanks for showing your stripe! Again…

          There’s no stated “disagreement”. There’s just the usual turd-swirl of shutupery, liar. Just your Stalinist ThoughtPolicing at work.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | March 4, 2018 at 6:54 am

          rags,

          Since when does a disagreement have to be stated to exist? For centuries, people have expressed their disagreement by walking away from speakers without any other comment. The downvote is the internet equivalent of walking away. Of not raising your hand when a show of hands is requested. The speaker can judge the crowd’s acceptance of his position by how many leave. It’s your megalonamia that makes you think it’s an attempt to silence you – you aren’t really that important.

          It is, however, funny that you find a few downvotes so troubling. Especially when one considers your history on LI.

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | March 4, 2018 at 7:58 am

          When I offer a link to some information, you’re free to ignore it. You’re free to take exception to its content. You’re even free to mindlessly condemn me for offering it in true Stalinist ThoughtPolicing mode.

          You default to the hind-most. Always.

          Heh…!!!

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | March 4, 2018 at 12:08 pm

          rags rote:
          When I offer a link to some information, you’re free to ignore it. You’re free to take exception to its content. You’re even free to mindlessly condemn me for offering it in true Stalinist ThoughtPolicing mode.

          You say we are ‘moral cowards’ engaged in ‘Stalinist ThoughtPolicing’ if we downvote it without giving you a reason.

          I can just downvote any other LI member and not be called a ‘moral coward’. As a capitalist consumer I have to ask: What do you think you contribute to the LI experience that justifies the added expense of dealing with you? Why does criticism of you take on a moral dimension?

          Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | March 4, 2018 at 10:03 pm

          I call YOU a moral coward because you are a frothing T-rump cultist who CANNOT refrain from attacking me personally every time I post anything critical of your Great Goad Cheeto.

          And you’re a habitual liar.

          You NEVER meet a critique on substance. You deflect and attack. You’re a disgusting anti-American.

      Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | March 3, 2018 at 9:03 am

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUu_MyWu4n8

      Here’s another one, Piglet. Like salt on a slug…!!!

        VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2018 at 3:05 am

        Thank you for proving me right!

        VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | March 7, 2018 at 3:44 am

        rags rote:

        I call YOU a moral coward because you are a frothing T-rump cultist who CANNOT refrain from attacking me personally every time I post anything critical of your Great Goad Cheeto.

        And you’re a habitual liar.

        You NEVER meet a critique on substance. You deflect and attack. You’re a disgusting anti-American.

        What a thin skinned, whining coward you are. Your stock in trade on LI is the personal attack on those you disagree with. When you call people ‘T-rump cultists’, ‘moral cowards’ and all your other ‘cute’ names, you are committing the personal attacks for which you are now condemning others. Don’t claim you have never downvoted a link type post without a comment – no one will believe you. Were you a moral coward when you did it? And here you are whining like a little baby because someone downvoted you. It must be hell for you, living in TX surrounded by real men. Do you stuff a sock in your pants when you go cruising?

        The problem for you is not that I don’t critique on substance, but that I DO. I hold you accountable for the consequences of your positions. You worked to defeat Trump, knowing that it meant Hillary would be elected. That is a fact – it’s substance. You claimed then and now that you are a great conservative defender. That you claimed it is a fact – it’s substance. Together, those facts logically raise the question of how electing her was better for conservativism. You have stated that your goal is to advance conservativism, making the question substantive. It’s even more substantive when, as you continue to do, you insult the intelligence and integrity of those who voted for Trump while refusing to explain, with presenting any substance, why defeating him was better for the cause. Why can’t / won’t you explain? Is it because your claim is wrong – that electing Trump was better than defeating him and that you lack the courage to admit it? You offer no explanation – no reasoning – no substance to back up your oft repeated claims. Why don’t you? Are you a sham? A fraud?

        The same is true on gun control. If you had successfully defeated Trump, a president Hillary would have appointed RBG II, not Gorsuch, would have banned the 2A, and would have a court that would deliver it. That’s what you would have given us, and it was known on Nov 8 that it would be the result of her victory. All that is fact – it’s substance. Yet, after working to defeat Trump and allow that to happen, you tried to paint yourself as the defender of the 2A over a proposed ban on bump stocks. That you claimed it is a fact – it’s substance. Substance that raises, again, the question of why defeating him was better for the cause. Why Hillary’s law and Hillary’s court is better than his. And with even more urgency, since you are trying to fraudulently wrap yourself in a flag you worked to destroy. And again your answer is to deflect and attack those who ask the substantive questions, instead of making your case.

        No, the fraud here who won’t answer on substance is rags. The hypocrite here is rags. The moral coward here is rags.

        So again I ask:
        What do you think you contribute to the LI experience that justifies the added expense of dealing with you? Why does criticism of you take on a moral dimension?

    Evil Otto in reply to Ragspierre. | March 4, 2018 at 7:34 am

    If you have a point to make, make it. We aren’t going to bother watching some 45 minute video because you link to it.

It is not a surprise that many students think that socialism is a good thing. For the most part they are a net drag on the country. They take more, sometimes much more, from society than they give, and will for the foreseeable future. Food stamps, welfare payments, subsidized housing, free schooling, the list goes on. Someday soon, I hope, they will be cut off and forced to live off their own labors, as meager as they are. Not too many jobs out there for women’s study majors out there. Too bad, I hope they like Ramen Noodles.

Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

–Ayn Rand

4th armored div | March 2, 2018 at 10:16 am

if we lived by the 10 commandments then charity and love one another would take care of many of societal’s problems –
BUT WE DO NOT and so socialism was invented to take the place of morality by brutality.
see North Korea and the various gulags.

we keep the age of children from what was once below the age of propagation to the age of propaganda.

Hollywood acts as if ‘real life’ only exists on the silver screen’

‘you want the truth ?
you can’t hanle the truth !’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk

    YellowGrifterInChief in reply to 4th armored div. | March 2, 2018 at 11:17 am

    Norway is a brutal place. They have many gulags called ski resorts.

    The state has large ownership positions in key industrial sectors, such as the strategic petroleum sector (Statoil), hydroelectric energy production (Statkraft), aluminum production (Norsk Hydro), the largest Norwegian bank (DNB) and telecommunication provider (Telenor).

      In part because they are flush with wealth from North Sea. It is when the money runs out that the “fun” begins. societies should be measured by how functional they are when times get tough. They did produce a Quisling though.

      So, you favor national socialism?

      Do you know how to say “national socialism” in German, and how the Germans reduced the phrase during their experiment with same?

      “Norway is a brutal place. They have many gulags called ski resorts.”

      Norway’s also a capitalist democracy, not a Socialist state. No, not even a “Democratic Socialist” one, nimrod.

      “The state has large ownership positions in key industrial sectors,-”

      And THERE is the key difference.

      Actual Socialism- as in the theory, not whatever YellowStreak claims- involves ownership of All the economic sectors by a collective body.

      Not just “large ownership positions” in “key” sectors.

      At most, Norway is a hybrid economy on a mostly capitalist, free market base.

      And the Scandinavians had to B8tchslap Bernie Sanders for mischaracterizing their system in a shameless attempt to link them to something most of the world views (or viewed) as pretty good, and not to totalitarian nightmares like the actual states he tended to Go To.

      https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html

      Again, this is where I point out that for all of the rhetoric by ignorant Bernie Bros and their idol, Bernie actually has STAGGERINGLY LITTLE experience with even the systems he calls “democratic socialist” (like the Scandinavian states), but A LOT with UNdemocratic socialist ones like Venezuela, Cuba, Sandinista Nicaragua, and so forth.

      This is why I view people like him as essentially intellectual paedos. People who prey on the naivety and lack of economic and civic knowledge of the average person in an attempt to shill something for their own benefit.

      Well, I may not be the world’s greatest Scholar but I KNOW a little bit better.

It’s about time someone told them this. And that they needed security in order to hear someone speak the truth tells them something else important, too.

Go Ben!

In both Christianity and atheistic socialism we belong wholly to a god. In Christianity, the god is Yaweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In atheistic socialism, the god is the state.

Can we ban YellowGrifter, the Nazi and Soviet apologist? I don’t think respectable sites should be giving a platform for people who want to turn the US into another Cambodia, Zimbabwe, or Venezuela.

    alaskabob in reply to Crawford. | March 2, 2018 at 12:09 pm

    No. He needs a reference point. The joke about world domination by communism was that they would still need one capitalist country to base their economy against otherwise they would get lost.

    alaskabob in reply to Crawford. | March 2, 2018 at 12:11 pm

    Add South Africa now since they just voted to confiscate white owned farms….without compensation. How is that constitution in South Africa going Ruth B Ginsberg?

How Progressives Win the Culture War
David Brooks MARCH 1, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/progressives-win-culture-war.html

Two things have fundamentally changed the landscape. First, over the past two years conservatives have self-marginalized. In supporting Donald Trump they have tied themselves to a man whose racial prejudices, sexual behavior and personal morality put him beyond the pale of decent society.

While becoming the movement of Dinesh D’Souza, Sean Hannity and Franklin Graham, they have essentially expelled the leaders and thinkers who have purchase in mainstream culture. Conservatism is now less a political or philosophic movement and more a separatist subculture that participates in its own ostracism.

Second, progressives are getting better and more aggressive at silencing dissenting behavior. All sorts of formerly legitimate opinions have now been deemed beyond the pale on elite campuses. Speakers have been disinvited and careers destroyed. The boundaries are being redrawn across society.

In this last paragraph, David Brooks takes glee that progressives are no long liberals but fascists.

    Neo in reply to Neo. | March 2, 2018 at 2:58 pm

    The only thing I’d say to my progressive friends is, be careful how you win your victories. It is one thing to win by persuasion and another thing to win by elite cultural intimidation. Illiberalism breeds illiberalism. Using elite power, whether economic or cultural, to silence less educated foes usually produces a backlash.

    Conservatives have zero cultural power, but they have immense political power. Even today, voters trust Republicans on the gun issue more than Democrats. If you exile 40 percent of the country from respectable society they will mount a political backlash that will make Donald Trump look like Adlai Stevenson.

    This happened already … dissing Romney begot Trump.

Rather than the alleged Russian trolls in so-called social media affecting elections, I’m much more concerned about the 75 year effort from the Left that created government unconstitutional institutions,
put terrorists into college professorships, who then went on to certify teachers, who then infiltrated the school system to brainwash our kids with their Soviet Bolshevik ideas. Collusion, multigenerational.

“Hundreds Of Police Officers Protect Audience At Ben Shapiro’s St. Paul Speech”

Allow me to reduce this to its most basic element:
“Hundreds Of Police Officers Protect Speech”

This is what progressives have brought us to – it takes police presence to defend free speech from leftists’ assaults (and that last word is used literally, not figuratively).

Rarely before have we seen such abject fear towards ideas that differ from what they have been exposed to. This terror of new ideas an the vigor with which they demand protection from these new ideas be stifled should speak volumes. Isn’t it amazing how close minded those are who scream the loudest about being open minded?

What the heck, is yellow the new official color of the democrats/communists? They got tired of stealing our blue for a while and don’t want to go back to red/pink yet?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend