Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   14 comments

Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

Dictatorship Comes Naturally To Socialists

By     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 9441
Become a Fan
  (10 fans)

::::::::

- Advertisement -

This is a comment replying to a comment at "Should Your Employer Have to Provide a Reason to Fire You?":

The freedom of association leaves no room for the complexity of employer decisions.

So now you oppose freedom of association? How many other rights are you going to throw away to achieve your goals?

Perhaps most firings of employees are justified. Perhaps they are not. The consequences to the employee and his or her family have severe survival consequences when abrupt termination of employment occurs.

When justified, the terminated employee has to be held fully accountable for the wreckage to self and family. When unjustified, the employer as God ruins lives without blinking to achieve a personal objective outside the fair interests of management.

- Advertisement -

In the world that progressives have created, the regulated stifled economy, there isn't the opportunity there could be. So in that context what you say above is true, being unjustly fired can be devastating. This is just another example of how one intervention leads to another. When an intervention does harm progressives jump up & clamor for more laws, rules, agencies to punish the mean people that won't behave the way they like. Why not have the moral & intellectual courage to face the fact that socialism doesn't work & that we'd be better off without the government's "help"?

Better to have a booming free market economy where emploters have to compete for talented workers & opportunities for self employment abound.

Example: A company has fired many longterm employees just as such workers are within spitting distance of collecting a pension, result employee only harvests his own retirement contributions while employer contributions are repossessed.

Wanting to be brief, I will limit to the above example. There are, undoubtedly, other advantages for the employer to discharge an otherwise good employee.

- Advertisement -

A good example. This is why there shouldn't be any such thing as an employee. We should consider everyone now classified as an employee to be self employed selling their services. No more company pensions, insurance, ad nauseum. People would be free to prepare for their own retirement, medical care, etc. This would avoid the problem in your example & other problems like companies folding & leaving the pensioners broke.

And this is the great problem I have with Liberatarians. Every human issue is black or white to them. Humanity is left out of their simple equations.

Humanity is what we're all about. It seems to me that progressives think that people can be rearranged like Lego blocks to magically create the perfect society. Force people to do this & force people to stop doing that. Never mind that the results are uniformly bad, they persist. If only we pass another law....

Libertarians understand the human side. One of the most important libertarian books is Human Action. We realize that people need to interact voluntarily to have their rights respected & to prosper.

Makes me wonder where the difference is between Liberatarians and the current "compassionate conservative" occupying the White House.

I'll assume the question is sincere so I'll patiently answer. The neocons don't practice freedom or free markets, their hot air not withstanding. They have adopted much of the progressive agenda. Regulation of the economy, a central bank, the income tax, federal control of all levels of government, government schools, government roads, government regulation & provision of healthcare, the intervensionist foreign policy. As Irving Kristol put it in "The Neoconservative Persuasion":

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government.

You could easily substitute progressive for neocon in the quote above. They have more in common with the left than with libertarians.

BTW, in "The Man Versus the State" Herbert Spencer wrote, "They have lost sight of the truth that in past times Liberalism habitually stood for individual freedom versus State-coercion." Progressives & neocons stand together on the side of state coercion. It's only the libertarians that oppose it.

 

http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/

Darren Wolfe is the former Eastern Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. He presently blogs as the International Libertarian http://www.theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/ His articles have also appeared in Ammoland.com, (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches: