Commons sense is once again defied by the loons on the left. If this doesn't smash NJ's convoluted worldview, his bubble is indeed indestructible.
A pro-immigration editorial in the Wall Street Journal (9/25/2015) makes a terrific point, in regard to the Pope's anti-capitalist crusade:
"Here is the Latin American pope acknowledging that the migrants are moving north to the United States, not the other way around. This is the same United States that practices the capitalist economics the pope has excoriated on so many other occasions. There must be something moral to free-market economics if it creates so much opportunity that attracts so many of the world's poor."
This simple, undeniable fact blasts to oblivion the Left's moral narrative. The Left's endlessly chanted line is: we must do something to meet the needs of the most vulnerable among us. (And the "something" we must do turns out to be: widen the government's power, so that even more forced sacrifice can be extracted from the producers).
The moral premise of the Left, the ultimate source of its power, is the soggy altruist notion that the needy hold a first-mortgage on the lives of others. Why? Ours is not to reason why. Because in reason there's no justification of the altruist claim that your life is not your own--that you belong to others.
And now the Wall Street Journal has fingered the awful truth: the world's most vulnerable don't want the system of sacrifice, of plundered wealth, of everyone's enchainment to everyone else. No, they want to be "exploited" by the allegedly rapacious capitalists: they want jobs, they want to earn their living, they want the high level of salaries that capitalism provides--and socialism squashes.
Socialism requires force--not only force against those whose earnings are to be seized, but also force against its purported beneficiaries: the poor. For if we left the poor free, they would do the "wrong" things--such as coming to America, where they will only be "ripped off" (i.e., employed) by profit-seeking capitalists. It seems that only the wise rulers know what is actually in the interest of the poor. Altruist-collectivists must hold that the poor are actually better off under Latin American socialism.
Ironically, it is the Left that should be urging the building of a wall on our southern border--to keep Hispanics from fleeing their statist paradises. And it is the Right that should be urging open immigration--to raise the standard of living of both immigrants and Americans, under (relative) freedom.
There is another, and truly amazing, proof that the altruist-collectivists, contrary to their claims, have no concern whatever with the fate of the poor: the story of India and China. The quickest and largest-scale betterment of the poor in all of history came to these 2 billion people once they moved away from socialism toward capitalism.
What do we hear from the Left about this unprecedented improvement in the lot of the most vulnerable? Nothing. They are not mystified by it, embarrassed by it, or deterred by it. They simply refuse to look at it. It's a monumental evasion.
Could one object that the capitalism-based improvement is being ignored because it's occurring so far away? That would be a hard sell, because our "duty" to help the starving in distant lands has been the constant drumbeat of the altruists for as far back as I can remember. In fact, in my generation it was common for parents to admonish children who weren't finishing a meal with: "Think of all the starving people in China." Well, now it's time to think of all the newly well-fed people in China--and of the pro-freedom movement that caused their ascent from the most wretched poverty.
How bad were the conditions in China under undiluted socialism? It was not just hunger. It was literal starvation. Rural mothers engaged in swapping babies . . . to eat. (Source: "A Dissenter's Odyssey Through Mao's China," New York Times, 11/16/80)
This is what socialism wrought and capitalism ended.
Recent events thus confirm what Ayn Rand wrote back in 1962:
"Altruism is not a doctrine of love, but of hatred for man.
Collectivism does not preach sacrifice as a temporary means to some desirable end. Sacrifice is its end--sacrifice as a way of life. It is man's independence, success, prosperity, and happiness that collectivists wish to destroy."
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...es_the_poor_capitalism_loves_them_101856.html
A pro-immigration editorial in the Wall Street Journal (9/25/2015) makes a terrific point, in regard to the Pope's anti-capitalist crusade:
"Here is the Latin American pope acknowledging that the migrants are moving north to the United States, not the other way around. This is the same United States that practices the capitalist economics the pope has excoriated on so many other occasions. There must be something moral to free-market economics if it creates so much opportunity that attracts so many of the world's poor."
This simple, undeniable fact blasts to oblivion the Left's moral narrative. The Left's endlessly chanted line is: we must do something to meet the needs of the most vulnerable among us. (And the "something" we must do turns out to be: widen the government's power, so that even more forced sacrifice can be extracted from the producers).
The moral premise of the Left, the ultimate source of its power, is the soggy altruist notion that the needy hold a first-mortgage on the lives of others. Why? Ours is not to reason why. Because in reason there's no justification of the altruist claim that your life is not your own--that you belong to others.
And now the Wall Street Journal has fingered the awful truth: the world's most vulnerable don't want the system of sacrifice, of plundered wealth, of everyone's enchainment to everyone else. No, they want to be "exploited" by the allegedly rapacious capitalists: they want jobs, they want to earn their living, they want the high level of salaries that capitalism provides--and socialism squashes.
Socialism requires force--not only force against those whose earnings are to be seized, but also force against its purported beneficiaries: the poor. For if we left the poor free, they would do the "wrong" things--such as coming to America, where they will only be "ripped off" (i.e., employed) by profit-seeking capitalists. It seems that only the wise rulers know what is actually in the interest of the poor. Altruist-collectivists must hold that the poor are actually better off under Latin American socialism.
Ironically, it is the Left that should be urging the building of a wall on our southern border--to keep Hispanics from fleeing their statist paradises. And it is the Right that should be urging open immigration--to raise the standard of living of both immigrants and Americans, under (relative) freedom.
There is another, and truly amazing, proof that the altruist-collectivists, contrary to their claims, have no concern whatever with the fate of the poor: the story of India and China. The quickest and largest-scale betterment of the poor in all of history came to these 2 billion people once they moved away from socialism toward capitalism.
What do we hear from the Left about this unprecedented improvement in the lot of the most vulnerable? Nothing. They are not mystified by it, embarrassed by it, or deterred by it. They simply refuse to look at it. It's a monumental evasion.
Could one object that the capitalism-based improvement is being ignored because it's occurring so far away? That would be a hard sell, because our "duty" to help the starving in distant lands has been the constant drumbeat of the altruists for as far back as I can remember. In fact, in my generation it was common for parents to admonish children who weren't finishing a meal with: "Think of all the starving people in China." Well, now it's time to think of all the newly well-fed people in China--and of the pro-freedom movement that caused their ascent from the most wretched poverty.
How bad were the conditions in China under undiluted socialism? It was not just hunger. It was literal starvation. Rural mothers engaged in swapping babies . . . to eat. (Source: "A Dissenter's Odyssey Through Mao's China," New York Times, 11/16/80)
This is what socialism wrought and capitalism ended.
Recent events thus confirm what Ayn Rand wrote back in 1962:
"Altruism is not a doctrine of love, but of hatred for man.
Collectivism does not preach sacrifice as a temporary means to some desirable end. Sacrifice is its end--sacrifice as a way of life. It is man's independence, success, prosperity, and happiness that collectivists wish to destroy."
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...es_the_poor_capitalism_loves_them_101856.html
