As you can see, this gentleman (who is well spoken, but typically spouting Communist propaganda), starts off with an impressive first paragraph. Yes, he's very impressive. But even in his first paragraph several problems instantly present themselves with his logic- and history.
"Empires have consistently failed due to one group of people, the wealthy, oppressing and exploiting another, the poor."
Woah, woah, wait. Let's count down the empires that have fallen.
- Greece. Greece fell after Sparta took Athens in the Peloponnesian War and began being very, very picky about how their people lived. Point 1 to free society.
- Rome. Rome fell several emperors after Catholicism began, and after their theocracy began messing around in how their subjects should live. In fact, the only high point of this period was Emperor Julian- the only non-Christian emperor after Constantine I. Point 2 to free society.
- Britain. Britain hasn't completely fell apart- but she made a pretty good start with America. The US declared her independence after Britain began foisting unfair taxes, trying to tell us what to do- we fought for what we believed in.
- USSR. The USSR fell because she was Communist, pure and simple. The government got overwhelmed. And people got tired of being bossed around constantly.
So, my point in that is this- history shows that only when a regime becomes excessively repressive does a civilization begin to fall apart. More government involvement is not going to help us, it will hurt us. Badly.
" The alternative to this all-too-familiar scenario is mandatory redistribution of wealth within a nation or empire"
Read my lips. Redistribution of wealth is not the answer. Oh yeah, it's the answer for the leaders, who 'redistribute' the wealth...right into their pockets. It's what happened in China after Mao took over. Yeah, the communists 'redistributed' wealth alright- they redistributed it right into the government's coffers!
"Democratic governments take power away from the wealthy and reinvest this power in the poor. This reinvestment in the poor is also known as socialism."
I could go on about this for more space than I have here. Socialism does not work. Period. No where has it worked, despite the politicians' almost psychotic worship of the ideology. Socialism always end up with the power being vested- not in the poor- but in the leaders who make themselves rich off of redistribution.
"And so a combination of socialism and free trade is needed for the survival of any civilization."
Wha...? No. An adamant no. All a mixture of socialism and free trade gives us is a wonderful mess, like oh, banks failing and mortgages falling into the commode. Doesn't work. Never has, never will.
"Without government intervention in the U.S. economy, child labor could easily make a comeback. This might sound outlandish, until we stop to consider that child labor was common practice in the United States until the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and remains a common practice today in impoverished countries all over the world."
Ahem...this is America in the 21rst Century. People couldn't hire children if they wanted to, because- most- parents wouldn't let their kids work when they were little! Now, I'm going to get all homeschooler on you for a moment.
On the website/blog The Rebelution, the authors present an interesting theory about the rise of the 'Kidult'. In short, the government made laws about things like child labor. At the time, these were good laws, needed laws. Now...not so much. The Harris's propose that such laws abolished the free, entrepreneurial, working society we once had. Kids were no longer allowed to work, so they failed to create character and learn how to work. So, they didn't work.
I said all that to say this- is 'child' labor really a bad thing? Should we have to wait until we're 17 to work? Would help our generation- and subsequent generations- rise up above this kidult fad we've fallen into. Anyway, on to the next fun quote!
"Left to itself, a free' market will naturally create a more and more pronounced divide between rich and poor, until there are only two classes: the extremely rich and the extremely poor."
Quick economic lesson: Communist China. Communism is supposed to be so great, right? Wrong. In China, there are only two classes- extremely rich and extremely poor. There was no middle class until about 15 years ago, when Deng Xiaoping began his reforms- and Americans began going over there to start up businesses.
The capitalists are reforming China's economy, and the Chinese are better off for it! (That could be debated by some, but I think it's true. :P )
"In order for people with less power to feel as if they have some control over their own lives, they need assistance from their government. "
This one is...well, pretty outrageous. If people need assistance from the government to 'feel' in control, then they have no control. None, zilch, nada.
"People with fewer resources and opportunities than the super-rich need a chance to get a good education, to have access to nutritious food and proper healthcare, and to move up the economic ladder, away from poverty and powerlessness."
- People can get education. You know all that time before public, standardized schooling? People were much smarter than they are now. Literacy in the US was over %90 for white males. It is now barely %80. For blacks, during World War I, it was over %80. It is now %68.
- Everyone had nutritious food once upon a time. Back before private enterprise was basically outlawed, everybody grew their own food, then sold the extras. Now, you can't do that because there are so many government regulations.
- My argument above applies to 'proper healthcare'. Back before home healthcare was outlawed, before midwives were vilified, every woman knew how to take care of her family's health. She knew how to sew up a cut, how to make a bandage, what herbs to treat with. Now it's a rare woman that knows how to dose Tylenol, much less what lavender can be used for.
- Poverty? Give me a break. Know what the poverty level in America is? $9,979 annually. The Iraq poverty line, which is the next lowest, is $8,900. Lowest poverty rate in the world? $600, in Somalia. All Americans have food regularly. If they didn't, how come we have the largest obese population in the world?
We have come to the end of this exercise in socialist learning. Please distribute a donation of no less than $10.00 in the box on your way out. Guards are watching the box. Thank you.