Berkeley and Caracas – is there any difference in the free-speech suppression of the Socialist’s Playbook?

Sometimes it is quite fascinating when two story lines, one is following intersect with perfect symmetry. Anyone familiar with the steady degradation of liberty in Venezuela has witnessed Socialist dictator Maduro is imposing his Leftist will upon that nation. Meanwhile in the states, the nation’s Socialist Left is attempting to do the same.

Advertisements

“Only oppression should fear the full exercise of freedom.” – Jose Marti

“The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy
without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to
do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. “ Ronald
Reagan

Consider this excerpt from Bloomberg: Venezuela Eyes Censoring Social Media After Public Shaming Wave

Venezuela is considering banning messages that promote “hate” and “intolerance” on social media and messenger services, according to Delcy Rodriguez, the president of the country’s all-powerful constituent assembly.

Rodriguez told reporters on Monday that the South American nation is looking to limit messages that fuel bigotry and confrontation between Venezuelans in a so-called anti-hate law, which is currently being debated by the legislative super body, known as the constituyente.

Compare this to a piece from The San Francisco Chronicle: After melees, Berkeley mayor asks Cal to cancel right-wing Free Speech Week

In the aftermath of a right-wing rally Sunday that ended with anarchists chasing attendees from a downtown park, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin urged UC Berkeley on Monday to cancel conservatives’ plans for a Free Speech Week next month to avoid making the city the center of more violent unrest.
[..]
“I am concerned about these groups using large protests to create mayhem,” Arreguin said. “It’s something we have seen in Oakland and in Berkeley.”

Then there is this from Constitutional scholar Nancy Pelosi in National Review: Yelling ‘Wolf’ in a Crowded Theater? Nancy Pelosi Flunks Constitutional Law

When the interviewer, Pam Moore, pressed Pelosi to consider Patriot Prayer’s First Amendment rights, Pelosi responded, “The Constitution does not say that a person can yell wolf in a crowded theater. If you are endangering people, then you don’t have a constitutional right to do that.”

Voluntary exchange versus coercion is one of the fundamental differences between Right and Left. The Right is based upon on a system of economic liberty while the Left relies on coercion. Part and parcel of the Left’s ideology of collective coercion is their reliance on false narratives and lies. It is a logical consequence that a system based on force cannot be open and honest about this because it is abhorrent to most people. A system that relies on false narratives and lies also cannot abide a free flow of information.

We on the Conservatarian-Right know we can win in the marketplace of ideas, the Socialist–Left cannot. Their 500 year old ideas have failed repeatedly down through the centuries because they are anathema to the basic precepts of psychology. The only way they can survive in that marketplace is to deceive people on the true nature of their ideas.

Parenthetically speaking, one cannot approach a group of people tell them that the government is going to force them to do the bidding of a small cadre of central planners and if they don’t they will be arrested and thrown into a ‘re-education’ camp. No, those purveyors of a collectivist bent must lie and make promises of government largess and blame others when these grandiose promises inevitably fail to materialize.

The Socialist–Left has to frame it’s ideas in flowery terms as ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’. The practical effects of their collectivist ideas do not result in these manifestations and thus they have to spew forth falsehoods that blame others for the lack of these results. And when their ideas fail completely, they have lie and claim that the systems utilizing these ideas weren’t actually utilizing these ideas.

We are now seeing this phenomena manifest itself in several locations, but with eerily similar results.

 

Does Bernie Sanders realize his ideas are 501 years old?

Last night Socialist Bernie Sanders tweeted out this trenchant comment cementing the assertion that the man has lost any sense of self-awareness:

This is a man who railed against his political opponents and talked about having fresh ideas. We could allow that perhaps he’s had a change of heart and has given up on the ancient ideas of collectivism. Never the less, it’s most likely he’s lost touch with history and reality. Not only did he lose badly to Comrade Clinton, but he’s been flogging the same old ideas for years now.

He should realize that his ideology was based on ancient ideas expressed 501 years ago in Sir Thomas More’s book Utopia [Published in 1516].

So when is he going to get out?

From the Communist Manifesto after 100 years [Monthly Review,  published August 1949]:

Why Change is a terrible metric for determining the political spectrum.

There are those of a certain political persuasion with an ideology based on the use of force that tend to obscure reality with various false constructs. One of these is their use of ‘change’ as a measure of how one is situated on the political spectrum. This metric conveniently puts their ideology in a positive light while disparaging their opposition. This article will serve to eviscerate this mythology.

Who defines what is ‘change’ and what is ‘reactionary’?

The first problem is that the ‘change’ metric is that this term is extremely subjective in form. Parenthetically speaking, it is extremely difficult to measure something by that which has no objective qualities. A yardstick has specifically defined quantities such that it can be used to determine and compare dimensional data. ‘Change’ is undefined for this purpose and is entirely useless for the purpose advocated by some.

The Left tends to define ‘change’ as coinciding with the precepts of their socialist national agenda. Whilst casting other forms of ‘change’ away from their agenda as ‘reactionary’.

The ‘change’ metric presumes that history only move in one direction – to the Left.

This highlights another reason this metric is wholly unsuitable for the task. The moving left inevitability myth was born in the bowels of Marxist theory more than a century ago. Events have shown that this movement is not always the case, that many a time the trend has been towards liberty and away from the tyranny. In those instances, the use of the ‘change’ metric would require a polar reversal of the terms with the Conservative – Right suddenly being the agents of ‘change’ while the Socialist – Left becomes ‘reactionary’. Clearly, one cannot have a political measurement and spectrum dependent of the events of the moment.

‘Change’ defies the dictionary definitions.

This metric is also wholly unsuitable as the quantifier of the political spectrum. The definitions of Conservative – Right and Socialist – Left and other terms have specific definitions that are independent of the ‘change’ metric. Attempts at the use of this tends to confuse and obfuscate the issues since it is disconnected from reality. But they say in the software business, this is a feature and not a bug. The sowing of confusion in this form tends to help the left in gaining more adherents. After all, who wants to be said to be against ‘progress’ and ‘change’?

‘Change’ as a means of casting certain political movements incorrectly.

One of the more egregious reasons the left uses this metric is to attempt to cast certain Socialist worker’s Party’s as somehow being on the opposite side of the political spectrum. After all, if one is going to throw out the dictionary and the logical basis of the political spectrum, why not go full bore and wrongly cast a certain set of socialist villains as being on the Right? With a subjective metric disconnected from reality, it’s easy to cast those from the Socialist – Left as somehow vestiges of the Conservative – Right.

‘Change’ as a means to cast old ideas as ‘new’.

With ‘change’ being an obscure and vague metric, the Left can use it to cast it’s old ideas as ‘new’. The fact is the basic principles of Collectivism have been around for centuries. Characterising them as ‘change’ can hide their decided lack of ‘freshness’. As previously discussed, the vague and ill defined nature of the metric can be used to advantage to cast opposition to old failed ideas as reactionary. This gives the left a convenient excuse to avoid discussions of these ideas. This has added bonus of casting that opposition as set in the past, with their point of view being seen as ‘progressive’ and of the future by implication.

Why change what works?

But let us look at this issue from another perspective. There is the old aphorism of “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”, so why is ‘change’ always considered to be a positive development? Why change what has been shown to function better than any other ideological systems?

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Sir Winston Churchill

Mankind has found the best form of government based upon free market principles. And as Sir Winston Churchill stated 70 years ago, it is the best in terms of every other form. So why is there any point in trying the other forms that have repeatedly failed to function? The parasite ideologies of collectivism do not work no matter their labeling or leadership, so is there any point in trying them ever again even if they are characterized as ‘change’?

Liberty is the best political measurement.

What really is the point of using a metric that tends to favour one side and is ill-defined? Why use a term that necessitates the remaking of definitions by the inconstant political winds of the moment? There is no reason to use a term that only serves to confuse and obfuscate the issues of the day. Even the Socialist – Left on occasion uses the term ‘liberal’ based on the same root word as Liberty. This should be the standard for the measurement of government power, not one that obfuscates the issues and is a supreme advantage of one side.

#Socialists Against Big Government Part II

Part I proved what should be obvious: That governments are composed of groups of people and that socialist and communist governments are groups of people who collectively and directly own or regulate the means of production. Thus, the Leftist talking point that failed socialist and communist regimes of the past and present weren’t really socialist and communist has been shown to be a lie.
In this part we will demonstrate that the practical implications of this deception are dysfunctional in the extreme because their programme can only be implemented by force of arms and governments never give up power voluntarily.

It can be shown via the logic of the dictionary definitions that governments are merely groups of people with the authority to govern a particular region, state or nation. And that socialist and communist governments are merely groups of people who collectively own or regulate the means of production.

One is supposed to ignore the obvious and instead pretend that a group of people collectively and directly owning or regulating the means of production is some other vague entity – but not a government. The socialists will also insist that these reality defying facts absolve them of any responsibility for the mass murder and repression of the people collectively and directly owning or regulating the means of production. And why would they try to deceive the world over something like that?

How are the Socialist’s grandiose plans for a “Worker’s Paradise” supposed to function without a government?

Instead of the aforementioned ruling entity, the whole socialist edifice is supposed to be based on ‘Worker Co-ops’ after the state has ‘Withered away’ and other vague abstractions. One would expect that this extremely important part of the Marxist programme would have been fleshed out over the many centuries of its existence. And yet this does not seem to be the case. Marxists, Socialists and Communists the world over expended barrelfuls of ink over discussions on class warfare and their disdain for economic freedom [capitalism] but precious little on this allegedly vital aspect of their base ideology.

This glaring omission on the part of the National and International socialists has not gone unnoticed by many: Chomsky’s Economics

So, if the state isn’t going to own income-producing property, and private concerns are not going to own it, who is going to own it? Apparently, and this all very fuzzy, the means of production will somehow be collectively owned by the workers themselves, wherein we arrive at the silly concept of anarcho-syndicalism. Instead of greedy capitalists owning the corporation, the workers themselves will own it. But it will not be ownership in the form of individual shares that can be sold. That’s capitalism.

No, he favors a vague and ill-defined form of collective ownership that the workers will figure out as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy. As Mises writes in Socialism, “as an aim, Syndicalism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it has not found any advocates who dared to write openly and clearly in its favor.”

We’re supposed to trust them that they will do it correctly THIS TIME despite the myriad times in the past that National and International socialists have failed to accomplish the very same task. Socialists only want to take over the world, and only afterwards will they work out the pesky details of how ‘The people collectively and directly owning or regulating the means of production’ WON’T really be a government later on… but everyone can trust them to do it correctly this time around. We have to let freedom pass from memory before we can see what’s in their plans. If this song and dance sounds a bit familiar it’s because it is. The terms have just been altered to oppress the innocent.

Socialism can only be implemented via government force.

The basic premise of socialism is epitomized by the infamous phrase:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Karl Marx

In all of their grandiose explanations of class warfare and the dictatorship of the proletariat the socialists are a bit vague on how one is supposed to spread the wealth around without the central authority to accomplish this goal. In general, most people do not want their hard earned property to be taken from them and given to others. But in the fanciful world of the socialists, everyone will gladly hand over their property to everyone else while unicorns prance about under rainbows and showers of gold. It will also have to be a continuous process of people letting others take their money for ‘the children’.

Yes, business owners the world over will only be too happy to hand over factories and corporate facilities they have invested in sweat and toil for years simply because a few blokes show up on their doorstep on some bright and sunny morn. Who can forget this oft recurring meme in many a movie or Broadway production?

The fact is in most cases the threat of force will have to be utilized in the taking ‘From each according to his abilities’. This is commonly known as theft and most people will not voluntarily let this happen to them. Thus there has to be a group of people with the authority and the firepower to take other people’s money. Leftists themselves offer the best illustration of why this is pure rubbish: How many of them hand over their property to others on a continuous basis?

Has a government ever voluntarily written itself out of existence?

So we have proven that in the storied centuries of socialism’s existence, most of a nation’s left have been quite vague in it’s supposed to work in one key aspect. Second, we have shown that governmental force would be required to implement the Socialist – left’s grandiose plans. The question then becomes, do groups of people in the form of a government ever wither away? This is answered by a very relevant quote from Lord Acton: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

That aphorism that succinctly answers that question with a resounding no. If history has taught us anything, it is that governments only tend to crave more expansive powers. Governments rarely, if ever devolve power and ‘withered away’. This happens with about the same frequency of unicorns prancing about under showers of gold.

And yet we’re supposed to believe the fiction that a group of people brought in under vague pretenses that attains tremendous power will somehow dissipate itself.

The fact is this little dodge from the socialist is nothing more than a fallacy wrapped in a lie. Governments are composed of groups of people, but somehow the socialists will tell you that there is a distinction there based on their criteria. And that lie just by coincidence absolves their bloody ideology of all of it’s past crimes against humanity. But don’t expect the socialists to come out and explain how that system is supposed to work, they haven’t had time in the past few hundred years to figure it out. Besides that fact that their ideology REQUIRES the use of government force of arms, and it never seems to disband itself.

In Part III we will examine the implications of taking the word of the socialist-Left seriously.

Reference Excerpt: Socialism is Not “Worker Control of the Means of Production”

One of the Socialist-left’s preferred ways of absolving themselves of the absolute failure and mass murder of their base ideology is to utilise various semantic word games to foster the mythology that socialism has yet to be tried. Not only is this complete balderdash, but it highlights the fundamental difference between right and left with regard to private property rights. In essence, the right believes in this fundamental concept that is a bulwark of freedom, the Socialist-Left does not.

The author’s main point is that while the vestiges of economic freedom allow one to actually fulfil the alleged objective of the socialist programme, the fact that this is insufficient for them reveals a fundamental difference between Right and Left. People can and do operate worker’s co-ops under the auspices of economic freedom. This is perfectly acceptable under a “laissez-faire constitutional republic that protects private property rights”. To each his own and all that.

The key difference between a system of economic freedom[ Free enterprise] and economic slavery [Socialism] is that property rights are not protected.

From Socialism is Not “Worker Control of the Means of Production”

So long as “socialism” is taken to mean a mode of production, people are perfectly free to live and work as “socialists” under a laissez-faire constitutional republic that protects private property rights. So such “socialists” should advocate for the political system that protects their right to live as they choose with any property they have produced or voluntarily traded for: a laissez-faire capitalist constitutional republic.

But no, in reality, socialists don’t want private property rights upheld by the government. This is what actually distinguishes them from advocates of capitalism. Their essential idea is a political one: private property rights are to be abolished. Workers should seize productive property from those who invested their time and money to build it, either through the “direct action” of organized union gangs, or through some type of formal government.

Economic freedom means that each individual owns their time and labour and the results of their productivity are theirs to keep and do as they wish. Contrast this with economic slavery where an individual’s time and labour are under the purview of the ‘collective’.

Note: We are using the terminology ‘collective’ since it means the same thing as a group of people or a group of people that form a government because it should be bloody obvious they are the same entity. Whether or not a group of people label themselves a government or a flying purple people eater makes no difference.

The plain fact here is that the Socialist-left cannot abide private property rights. Specifically, they cannot abide people owning themselves. Let us be clear on this point: If an individual owns themselves, it logically follows that the individual owns the product of their time and labour. Conversely, the only way the collective can rightfully own the product of an individual’s time and labour is by owning the individual.

It’s not that the Socialist-Left is trying to justify theft, because for them that would be condoning property rights. No, their mindset has to be that everyone is a part of the ‘collective’ and that property has to be owned collectively – up to and including every individual.

This mindset is seen in how they approach the common sense civil right of armed Self-Defense. For those of the Right, it is patently obvious that an individual has this Right, and will answer in the affirmative when queried about it. This is not the case for those on the Socialist-Left, for they will not even answer the question. For the Right of self-defense signifies self ownership, the lack thereof means that one’s existence is up to the whims of the ‘collective’. The Socialist-Left cannot even admit to this point.

If people owns themselves, they own the products of their labour and it cannot be ‘redistributed’ at the whim of the ‘collective’. It’s only by the vestiges of collective ownership that “other people’s money” can be seized and ‘redistributed’

The author concludes with this:

Socialism is not about workers getting together and starting their own companies. It’s about eliminating private property rights in order to forcibly seize what the most productive individuals in the society have produced. Morally, the essence of socialism is coercive injustice.

 

Today The Nation’s Socialist Left Should Be Asking Themselves: “Are we the baddies?”

We begin with a humorous video from Mitchell and Webb:

Perhaps our Comrades on the Left should take this as a humorous inspiration in their self examination and perhaps they should be asking this question of themselves. Consider how they’ve conducted themselves over the past few months. They and their base ideology have been losing for years now and yet they still think of themselves as being on the ‘right side of history’.

Their mindset of having a birthright to power is palpable at times in their words, deeds and actions.

They truly think that their way is ‘progress’ and anything short of that is a travesty of justice (Socialist and otherwise). History is not allowed to reject the siren song of the left and it’s collective ideology. It’s only when the nation moves toward the Socialist left that all is well and good in the universe, anything else is ‘reactionary’ and verboten.

This mindset also manifests itself in their reaction to events.

They cheer on the use of violence against their political opponents, and fail to see the irony in truly acting like the Fascist-left of the past while maintaining the self description of being “Antifa”.

To them, the ends justifies the means and if those involve weaponry, their only complaint is whether or not the shooter’s aim was true.

They gaze upon the sheer insanity of their socialist brethren and fail to see the same in themselves.

From the Right Scoop: ‘Hopefully everyone is looking in the mirror tonight’ – Chuck Todd blames everyone else

And this doesn’t even touch on the subject of the blood soaked history of their base ideology with an estimated 100 Million dead and a tendency for repression. So perhaps those out there of the national socialist left should be asking this question of themselves: Are we the baddies?

A Tsunami Of Absurdity

How does ‘The Onion’ stay relevant the days?

Each days sees news stories and opinion pieces that defy logic and common sense to a point far beyond disbelief. We begin with an item from The College fix: Feminist researcher invents ‘intersectional quantum physics’ to fight ‘oppression’ of Newton

Whitney Stark argues in support of “combining intersectionality and quantum physics” to better understand “marginalized people” and to create “safer spaces” for them, in the latest issue of The Minnesota Review.

Because traditional quantum physics theory has influenced humanity’s understanding of the world, it has also helped lend credence to the ongoing regime of racism, sexism and classism that hurts minorities, Stark writes in “Assembled Bodies: Reconfiguring Quantum Identities.”

But one can surmise that if the national socialist left wants to defy logic and ignore the science of there being only two genders then what’s is to stop them from going ‘round the bend even further?

And then there are these additional items that make one question what is going on:

From NewsBusters: USA Today: Trump Driving Liberals to Yoga

The Telegraph: Exclusive: Manchester suicide bomber used student loan and benefits to fund terror plot

And finally, The Resurgent: If You Don’t Think Progressivism is a Disease, Check This Out

But then again, these were just the items from yesterday, and with the rapid turn of events they almost sound reasonable one day later. Lord help us all.