I am not a Communist because...
Communists believe in equal liability to all to labor. I believe all men are not created equal. I believe that some people just work harder than others. I believe some people love to work, while others enjoy loafing a bit more. I believe that we reap what we sow, literally.
Communists believe that bourgeois society creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labour...Property in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. I believe in the opposites of good and evil. I do not believe that inanimate objects are either good or evil. I believe that people may choose to treat others well or poorly. I do not believe that property can exploit, only individuals.
Communists believe the abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly the aim. By freedom is meant, free trade, free selling and buying. I do not believe that for one class to prosper another must be abolished. Nor do I believe that by abolishing the property of one class another will benefit. I believe that it is not circumstances or wealth that makes men free, but the ability to choose in every circumstance. I believe in free-enterprise. I believe that when men have the freedom to experiment in trying a new business, it benefits society. I believe that innovation comes from the freedom to try. I also believe that a free market economy creates a greater wealth for all.
Communists believe that in bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality. Again, I believe in the freedom to choose. I believe that individuals, although dependent on others for some things still have freedom in other areas. I do not believe that individuals with more money have greater freedom, only greater opportunity which is not always synonymous with freedom. I believe, in my society, that one can choose what level of affluence they want to achieve in this life. But I also believe that some may have an easier way to prosperity.
The theory of the Communist may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. I believe in private property. I believe that an individuals property is an extension of that individual. I believe that my property is the fruit of my labor. I believe that I may choose to give away my property of my own free will, but that another does not have the right to take my property without compensation. Nor do I believe that any property beyond the needs of an individuals belongs to public domain. I believe that even the poor have and deserve property rights.
Communists believe that to a great extent (industry has) already destroyed it (labors property). I do not believe that capital seeks to destroy labors individual property. Nor do I believe that capital is evil. I do, however, believe that power and money have the tendency to corrupt individuals.
Communists have no interest separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. I do not believe that Communists “have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.” I believe that man is naturally inclined to his own interests. I also believe that those who propose anarchy assume they will be in a higher, more authoritative position after or they would not propose it.
Communists believe, in its completely developed form ...family exists only among the bourgeoisie. I believe that family has always been the basic unit of society. I do not believe family is a creation of the bourgeoisie. I believe that even among the poor in a society, the family can and does exist. I do, however, believe that poor circumstances can adversely effect the family unit.
Communists believe that the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class. I believe that government is best established by order. I believe that when the Communists talk about a centralized “State” they are talking about a few governing the many. I believe that anarchy has no other purpose other than to wrestle the power from one ruler to give to another.
Communists believe that the ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, merely gave expression to the sway of freedom of competition within the domain of knowledge. I am not a Communist because I believe in religious liberty for all. I believe that freedom of conscience is fundamental to peace and happiness in this life. I do not believe that religion is a creation to submit the poorer classes to the will of the ruling class. I believe in a God, the Creator of this world. I believe that society is best served when the individuals of that society follow the Creator and live by His laws.
Having stated why I am not a communists, I understand the main point of their argument. I know that there are great advantages in possessing wealth in this life. I also know that those who are the poorest in our society are disadvantaged. But because I believe that happiness is not determined in the amount of wealth one possess, nor in the comfort or education one receives, I really feel less inclined to participate in the passion that stems from the arguments of the Manifesto.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
A Simple Thing Called Consequences
By Connie Pulotu
There is a simple thing called consequences in this world. It is a wonderful natural law that I believe helps the world maintain a sense of order. It works in a very natural way: Fire is hot and burns, don't touch the fire or you will be burned. You touched the fire, therefore you were burned. It is an important matter.
Unfortunately, in the world of parenting, sometimes the natural consequences are not realized. Parents who think they are showing love often circumvent the law of natural consequence and allow the child to fore go the opportunity to learn a valuable lesson. The child usually turns out bad.
I think the idea of consequences has a lot to do with economics.
Let's suppose I am a twenty-five year old graduate student. I have been extended many credit cards by various banks. Justifying the use of all these cards as a way to help me through school, they are all “maxed out”. The natural consequence of this careless behavior is the opportunity to take fifty years to pay back these companies for letting me use their money. But what if I can't find a job after I graduate? What if I don't have the money to pay it back? Well, more than likely I will have to file bankruptcy and will be labeled a bad investment in the future. That is the consequences. But what about the bank?
Let's look at this from the bank that issued the credit card. They knew I was a student because when I applied I gave truthful information. They knew I had only a part-time job. They decided to take a chance on me. Well, because I filed bankruptcy, they will only recover a portion of my balance. That is the consequence.
How about a bigger example? Let's suppose a government has a policy to get involved in lending money for mortgages. This policy is aimed to help lower-income households qualify for loans that they might not have qualified for. The government has said they will back the loans if the individuals default. So big banks begin issuing lots of loans. A consequence: the housing market soars. New types of loans are created. The banks are making lots of money. Construction companies are making lots of money. Everyone is making lots of money. An economic bubble is formed. This is a consequence. But like all bubbles, it finally bursts. Now the natural consequences of a burst bubble are painful. Housing prices plummet, construction companies go belly up, everyone loses money. Well, not quite everyone. There are some big banks that will not feel the natural consequences. There will be some individuals who will actually gain from the crisis. But, just like a parent who interferes will the natural consequences of her child, the outcome is never good.
I think these are the things that bother me about the Keynesian view of economics.
Keynes says, “Individuals acting independently by the method of trial and error in such a way that those individuals who move in the right direction will destroy those who move in the wrong direction. This implies that there must be no mercy or protection for those who embark their capital or their labour in the wrong direction”
Keynes gets passionate when he discusses the idea that no mercy is extended to those businesses that can't compete. Should we show “mercy or protection” to those who move in the wrong direction? Would we not be like the parent raising a bad kid? Wouldn't that encourage other businesses to move in the wrong direction?
Those businesses which move in the right direction benefit our community. They increase capital and create new jobs. Should we limit them by legislature? That just doesn't make sense to me.
So I am a proponent for consequences. As painful as it maybe to experience the consequences of our decision, I think it is fundamentally important to learning. Oh, and government needs to stop interfering in the natural consequences. The child usually turns out bad.
By Connie Pulotu
There is a simple thing called consequences in this world. It is a wonderful natural law that I believe helps the world maintain a sense of order. It works in a very natural way: Fire is hot and burns, don't touch the fire or you will be burned. You touched the fire, therefore you were burned. It is an important matter.
Unfortunately, in the world of parenting, sometimes the natural consequences are not realized. Parents who think they are showing love often circumvent the law of natural consequence and allow the child to fore go the opportunity to learn a valuable lesson. The child usually turns out bad.
I think the idea of consequences has a lot to do with economics.
Let's suppose I am a twenty-five year old graduate student. I have been extended many credit cards by various banks. Justifying the use of all these cards as a way to help me through school, they are all “maxed out”. The natural consequence of this careless behavior is the opportunity to take fifty years to pay back these companies for letting me use their money. But what if I can't find a job after I graduate? What if I don't have the money to pay it back? Well, more than likely I will have to file bankruptcy and will be labeled a bad investment in the future. That is the consequences. But what about the bank?
Let's look at this from the bank that issued the credit card. They knew I was a student because when I applied I gave truthful information. They knew I had only a part-time job. They decided to take a chance on me. Well, because I filed bankruptcy, they will only recover a portion of my balance. That is the consequence.
How about a bigger example? Let's suppose a government has a policy to get involved in lending money for mortgages. This policy is aimed to help lower-income households qualify for loans that they might not have qualified for. The government has said they will back the loans if the individuals default. So big banks begin issuing lots of loans. A consequence: the housing market soars. New types of loans are created. The banks are making lots of money. Construction companies are making lots of money. Everyone is making lots of money. An economic bubble is formed. This is a consequence. But like all bubbles, it finally bursts. Now the natural consequences of a burst bubble are painful. Housing prices plummet, construction companies go belly up, everyone loses money. Well, not quite everyone. There are some big banks that will not feel the natural consequences. There will be some individuals who will actually gain from the crisis. But, just like a parent who interferes will the natural consequences of her child, the outcome is never good.
I think these are the things that bother me about the Keynesian view of economics.
Keynes says, “Individuals acting independently by the method of trial and error in such a way that those individuals who move in the right direction will destroy those who move in the wrong direction. This implies that there must be no mercy or protection for those who embark their capital or their labour in the wrong direction”
Keynes gets passionate when he discusses the idea that no mercy is extended to those businesses that can't compete. Should we show “mercy or protection” to those who move in the wrong direction? Would we not be like the parent raising a bad kid? Wouldn't that encourage other businesses to move in the wrong direction?
Those businesses which move in the right direction benefit our community. They increase capital and create new jobs. Should we limit them by legislature? That just doesn't make sense to me.
So I am a proponent for consequences. As painful as it maybe to experience the consequences of our decision, I think it is fundamentally important to learning. Oh, and government needs to stop interfering in the natural consequences. The child usually turns out bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
