|
Back to Quack Off
Quack Off
by
Free Market
Duck
Obama-Clinton
“nightmare ticket” promises to drag U.S. down the road to serfdom via
Marxist socialism
(June 4, 2008)
How
ironic. The first black U.S. presidential candidate, Barack Obama,
advocates Marxist socialism, a state collectivist philosophy whose core
moral philosophy of anti-individual rights and anti-free markets is the very
same philosophy under which Africans were forced into slavery in colonial
America. It was not under free market capitalism that slaves were brought
to America; it was under state and church collectivism by the governments of
Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and other countries (ruled by the concept
of the Divine Right of Kings) that slavery was implemented. If Barack Obama
is looking for a socio-political-economic “Change” of ideology in America,
he is barking up the wrong tree vis a vis Marxist socialism. He would do
well to re-read the ideas of free minds and free markets as the fundamental
premises underlying the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The extent to
which the U.S. has already implemented socialism is the extent to which we
have problems. Socialism is not what we need; socialism is what we need to
get rid of.
The second irony in today’s political drama is that Hillary Clinton, the
first woman U.S. presidential candidate, also suffers from the same
affliction as Barack Obama. She, too advocates Marxist socialism, the same
state collectivist philosophy whose core moral philosophy of anti-individual
rights and anti-free markets is the very same philosophy under which women
have been held down as 2nd class citizens for thousands of years,
and still are.
Boise,
ID – How is it that two college-educated lawyers running for president of
the United States, both of whom represent ethnic and gender icons of
previous discrimination in America, are running on the same moral
philosophical principles as Germany’s Adolf Hitler (National Socialism),
Italy’s Benito Mussolini (Fascism), Russia’s Joseph Stalin (Communism), and
China’s Mao Tse-Tung (Communism) – all of which are variations on the theme
of altruistic state collectivism (Big Brother Dictatorships) -- instead of
individual rights and freedoms?
The simple
answer is that Obama and Hillary have mistakenly adopted the definition of
“individual rights” as the oxymoron “rights to receive from others” (which
means all parties have reciprocal rip off rights,
which means nobody has any rights at all) instead of the correct definition
of individual rights, which is “rights to voluntarily give or exchange” (which
means everybody has equal rights).
This one
small conceptual difference, this one minor philosophical detail – the
“right to freely give” vs. the “right to receive” -- is what separates
true individual rights advocates from state dictators. And this is precisely
what Obama and Hillary don’t understand.
In Marxist
socialism, the collectivist philosophy of “rights to receive” never
answers the question “rights to receive FROM WHOM" because it would reveal
the denigration of somebody else’s rights. Karl Marx expressed it as, “From each
according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In free market
philosophy, “rights to freely give or exchange” is expressed as, “inherent
individual rights of mutual non-infringement.”
Note
that
the Marxian socialist concept of “rights to receive” is enforced by The State
Police through a
governmental policy of Reciprocal Rip Off edicts or direct confiscation and
redistribution by
the State. In free market capitalism, individual “rights” occur as individuals exchange freely in an open market, which is
governed by an objective judicial and police system that prohibits
infringements upon individual rights – e.g. enforced by the U.S. constitution and Bill
of Rights -- instead of granting “rights to receive,” which means “special
legislation,” which today in America means “earmarks” and/or deficit financing (given a
Federal central bank with unlimited ability to print paper money and today's
corrupt U.S. Congress).
This
seemingly minor difference – “rights to receive” vs. “rights to give” -- is
the turning point on which swivels life and death,
social-political-economic, for billions of Earth humans today, as it always
has throughout history, and will continue to do far into the future of our
children and grandchildren if we don’t get back to the proper definition of
individual rights and freedoms. To not understand this important
philosophical difference in the definition of individual "rights" is to not understand why supposedly intelligent
individuals running for the presidency of the United States, and who
represent icons of past ethnic and gender discrimination, can come to the
wrong conclusion regarding which socio-political-economic system
will best solve our current problems: Marxist socialism or free market
capitalism.
Thus,
Obama and Hillary are unwittingly advocating policies of economic suicide,
perhaps without knowing it, but at least without correct logic of Cause and
Effect, especially with regard to basic economics.
In short, there is
no such concept as Obama's and Clinton's "rights to receive." It is
simply a non sequitur at best, an oxymoron at worst. It is an
illogical concept that can never be implemented.
The
important thing to note is that Obama’s and Clinton’s iconic representation
can be reduced to a more basic principle of equality than simply ethnicity
or gender: it’s called individual
rights since the individual is the smallest minority possible. All
political candidates should be proposing a philosophy of
inherent individual rights defined as “rights to
freely give or exchange,” not the oxymoronic concept of Karl Marx’s “rights
to receive” from everybody else, usually through that cleverly
camouflaged entity called “The State.”
Entire
nation states have crumbled under the same Marxist philosophy espoused by
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. So, be careful what you wish for,
people. The “Change” you demand may be the “Change” you’ll get. – FM Duck
back to top... |