Monocrats are all the same, yet we continue to be surprised.
Posted by coaldigger 11 years, 4 months ago to Government
A King is just the figurehead (given the right to govern by god) of a governmental system called a Monarchy where everything belongs to the King (government). Communism/Socialism are just systems whereby everything belongs to the collective people. A Dictator is just a King who obtained his right to govern by force. They are all Monocrats. Most countries of the world are governed by some entity that does not recognize private ownership of anything. Stateists in the US, both from the left and right, beneath the facade of their claims of belief in Representative Democracy and Capitalism, are Monocrats no better than any of the others. It may be argued that this is not so, that there are examples of leaders in Russia, China, Iran and elsewhere that are much worse but it is because in those countries there were no countering forces like exist in the US, feeble though they may be.
Given the the underlying principle that the government owns everything, it is easy to understand the concepts of "living wages", guaranteed entitlements, universal healthcare and free education from preschool through college paid for from the revenue, unfairly retained by the rich. Most governmental discussions of tax policy are laced with the concept that ALL revenue belongs to the government and the amount that citizens retain is a benefit granted by and a cost to government. Dirty words like "Free Markets" and "Capitalism" are used to describe the means used by the greedy not to produce the wealth but to get an unfair share. All Monocrats believe that "wealth" is naturally occurring, provided by nature or God, is fixed in quantity and it is necessary for an authority to exist to divide it up for the collective good. Virtually all of our politicians believe this to some degree and the ones that don't have not been able to make their case.
Given the the underlying principle that the government owns everything, it is easy to understand the concepts of "living wages", guaranteed entitlements, universal healthcare and free education from preschool through college paid for from the revenue, unfairly retained by the rich. Most governmental discussions of tax policy are laced with the concept that ALL revenue belongs to the government and the amount that citizens retain is a benefit granted by and a cost to government. Dirty words like "Free Markets" and "Capitalism" are used to describe the means used by the greedy not to produce the wealth but to get an unfair share. All Monocrats believe that "wealth" is naturally occurring, provided by nature or God, is fixed in quantity and it is necessary for an authority to exist to divide it up for the collective good. Virtually all of our politicians believe this to some degree and the ones that don't have not been able to make their case.
http://www.TheSocietyProject.org
Rand - just like everyone else - chose to see the world in her own terms. She took a fairly radical approach to such and chose to focus on money as a status symbol: that wealth could be used as a measure of productiveness. She then placed this in context of a society based wholly on the market. She came from a society where the true market was underground - both empirically and socially and where government control of everything had doomed it to a haven for the politically connected, so one shouldn't ignore her history when evaluating her view of the world.
While I doubt the founding Fathers would be satisfied with the state of our modern politics, it is easy to see how the few maintain rule. All one has to do is look at the Bush family, John Kerry, Al Gore, the Kennedy family (includes Arnold Schwartzenneger who married a Kennedy), and many more. Money - rather than good ideas - is more commonly the ticket into national politics. How many of our current leaders were "groomed" for their Senate or House seats by virtue of well-connected beneficiaries? Nearly all of them, not least of these being our current President.
Seriously, she was an athiest, but the Antichrist? That's one toke over the line.
The American Political system operates as such ! Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and all the other idiots are a perfect example and that's why it's important to give ALL OF THEM the boot !
Rand was very very pro-distinguishing actual differences in people and in distinguishing reality generally. She never ever said any person can be replaced with another.
Go read what she actually wrote and think on it before saying such obviously misinformed things.
"All Monocrats believe that "wealth" is naturally occurring, provided by nature or God, is fixed in quantity and it is necessary for an authority to exist to divide it up for the collective good."
I think they probably would say "no" to this, but if you changed the wording a little, I bet many people in the public policy world would agree.
It's like that saying, "these tax cuts will be very expensive."
It's also like the saying "the president created jobs," or "jobs are being shipped abroad," as if jobs were things created by the gov't and rationed out.
There's also the saying that "I can't succeed in this economy", as if the economy were some magical entity rather than people coming together to help each other in trades.
They see it, as you say, as being about greed. But money is made when you do something that gives people a product or service they want.
The average person in public policy would say, "oh yes, yes, of course," but not really think about how little decisions like my wife creating a system to help people with paperwork and then training an associate attorney on the system IS the economy. It's not some magical thing out there controlled by politicians.