March 18, 2013

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

I am stealing a bit from a post over at Ed's place. I am not sure this is really where he was going with his post, but as I think further about it, I see the end game for the progressive movement.

In recent years the political conversation has moved steadily to one of "need" . Obama and his cronies are always talking about our needs (I am going to dispense with the quotation marks around "need" as I find it tiresome). Early in his Presidency Obama told us we do not need to keep our houses so warm in the winter and so cool in the summer. he said American use way more energy than they should (read 'need'). We are told that at some point you do not need all of that money you are making.  You are advised that some people have better health insurance than they need, so 'Cadillac Policies" are taxed under ObamaCare.

Much of the current gun control debate centers on what you need.  You hear Feinstein and other gun-grabbers postulate that you do not need a scary black plastic semi-automatic rifle. After all, it is not good for hunting. It is not a big jump to argue you do not need more than one gun. You see, the notion that the scary black semi-automatic rifles are rarely used in crimes is irrelevant, it is about confiscation of firearms.

Back in the day you heard Sierra Club types complain that people did not need a Hummer. Now as far as I know every single owner of the Hummer in its various forms bought and paid for the vehicle and gas themselves, so for me, who cares what they drive? But rest assured Obama and your typical liberal looks at your pickup and your SUV/crossover and wonders why you need such a big gas hog. You are not in the farm or construction industry.  You do not haul big loads. Trust me, before the next President is elected the question of why you need a big car will be in the national discussion.

We must do all we can to discourage the conversation turning to one of discussing needs. Every time a liberal starts a sentence with "You do not need..." we must respond with "Need has nothing to do with it". Rights have nothing whatsoever to do with need. Capitalism is not based in need.

 I do not need a three car garage. I do not need a an SUV. I do not need a 'fridge in my garage. I do not need a humidor filled with imported cigars rolled between the thighs of luscious maidens in some far-off Caribbean Island or Central American country.  I don't need a smart phone or computer or big screen TV. I do not need some bureaucrat or governmental flunkies making life decisions for me and my family.

Is there and endgame to moving the conversation to one of need? Progressives like to discuss needs, because that is how they think.  Capitalism is fueled by greed in their mind. It caters to wants. For your typical liberal, there should not be profit in basic necessities. Food, shelter, health care should be free for everyone. No one should have better or best. I do not need to be eating a steak when you are munching on a generic brand hot dog.

Once the conversation becomes one of needs, then we are finally closer to the real goal: a society based on working to one's ability and receiving according to one's needs.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Goal: It has been tried and failed and failed and failed. The problem, People.
It's the same moronic argument about we need a village to raise a child. You only need a village if the parents are not doing their job. We have failed time and again to hold people responsible for their decision. I have no problem paying taxes to support those things that actually need supporting. Taxes for basic school? I don't have a problem with that. Taxes to support special schools? I have a problem with that. Taxes to pay teachers to teach, no problem. Taxes to pay teachers to raise children, I have a problem with that. All children need to go to college? Why? I could go on and on, but I think you get my message.
James Old Guy

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Yeah, Joe, but you could take the analogy to its logical conclusion.

"I don't need a president. Or a congress."

At least not this bunch.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Excellent observations and a logical extension to my post.
Thank you.

hey teacher... said...

In response to JOG, I don't want to raise any children but my own. That said, somebody has to nurture the children of crack and meth addled "parents" who don't give a damn about their kids and/or are in jail and can't/won't interact with them. Do we just let them fend for themselves? Then we have them having babies at 14 and the cycle continues. No, I don't have an answer on how exactly to fix it but there are a lot of gray areas not just black and white.

Anonymous said...

James Old Guy
Hey Teacher
I agree to a point but where does it end? How much longer before the tax payers stop paying and join the takers? Radical choices? No one has a right to have children and the choice of not having children is everywhere. I am tired of hearing about teachers not teaching, they teach but you can't teach if half the time is taken up doing parenting. I hate to break this news to the world but some children are just plain stupid. Don't agree, look who is President.

Otter said...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY LIL" BRO!!!

Consider everything here that is of original content copyrighted as of March 2005