About socialism

Socialism on a personal level: somebody believes that he or she is entitled to different things - health care, education, housing, pension, etc. A key word is "entitled".

Socialism on a country level: regulation is stronger than a private sector. Means of production are in the hands of the government, or are under it control. I've read that if California could be divided in 3 parts, all problems would be solved. It is hard to regulate even a state, let alone a country.

When somebody says "I have a right to", I listen carefully because very often it is a red flag (pun was not intended). From where I'm now, I see that we have a right to only one things - to exist. Nobody can give us life; we can't even conceive a child at will - it is always a game of chance. We also can't restore a life when it is gone, it is also a chance that doctors sometimes have. We better behave ourselves in a manner that provides conditions for other human beings to exist, or society has a right to confine, or even take a life that is dangerous to others' survival.

The rest is a privilege. Some people are born intelligent, some have low IQ. Some are healthy, some are invalids - and so on. Born in poverty or riches... If we don't accept that life is unfair we will try to build a system that eradicates such unfairness, or brings them to bare minimum. It is not my theoretical opinion that such system is impossible: it is proved historically, from French to Russian revolution. Rights and entitlements have a tendency to grow because it is in human nature to want more and more, but there is no source to support such draw. It all always ends in rationing and concentration camps for unhappy.

If somebody agrees with such premises, it would be productive to discuss how we can regulate free enterprise to make if more efficient, to provide a better flow for it. As an analogy - imagine cleaning up a river up from logs and sand banks, and building bridges over it. But is somebody doesn't agree and wants to substitute a river with a concrete canal that is straight and more efficient, it would be a model of socialism.

Some say that better model is possible, just look at the Europe. From what I know, European countries are less developed than America - even if they don't have to spend a big portion of their budgets for armaments. Sweden or Spain had a luxury to invest in social services while we stood against Soviet Union. Unemployment in Europe is normally higher then in America in recession.

On a health care front recall 10 thousand dead in France 7 years ago in a heat wave because relatives left their elderly and infirm in a care of the government services www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/heat-a22.shtml. Can you imagine it in the USA? Heat, or cold, or hurricane, or tornado - people help each other, and a death toll is never more than 10-20 people.

Naturally, there are disadvantages in the American system, too, but I prefer a hassle in everyday care to seemingly orderly fashion in Canada or Europe if our cancer survival rates are 20-30% higher than anywhere in the world. Of course, it would be good to have it all, but let us be realists.

Before "bad" and "aggressive" imperialist known as the US started "ruling" the world, that world experienced deadly devastating war twice a century (not counting small bloodsheds). "Civilized" Europeans killed each other until bad-mannered Americans started to provide stability. These people should pray for Uncle Sam... not to burn his flags. Now instead of exterminating each other in wars Europeans simply stopped to procreate; they are dying out. Maybe, there is a payment for entitlements after all?

Whatever the answer(s), American experiment is unique and deserve respect and studying. It worked for 200 years, and people still die - literally - to get there. I take it personally when those who are lucky to stay here criticize and want to transform the US in the another "old country". For those who are born in America and are dissatisfied, my advice is to relocate to any other country and live there not as a visitor but to go "native", working, using health care, education, etc. I'll be glad to embrace them when they come back...

Confronting Tyrants - Naivety Makes a Poor Weapon of Choice

Define irony: President Barak Obama speaks to Europe about his desire the denuclearize the world in way of weapons while North Korea simultaneously fires a test rocket over the Pacific Ocean.

"We have been talking about this since the Clinton administration, and they have been building nuclear weapons and building better and better missiles while we keep talking, and one morning like 9-11, there's going to be a big disaster and we're going to say, 'why didn't anyone think about that?'" -Newt Gingrich

You may not care too much for former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, but you cannot deny the reality of what he says. During the Clinton administration, the US sent so called humanitarian money to North Korea, and to no big surprise, the people of North Korea did not receive benefits from that aid. Strangely enough, during that same time period, North Korea revealed the greatest advancement in their weaponry since the Korean War. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to conclude that this timeline dosn't just make a coincidence; North Korea (Do I even need to insert the word, "probably," here?) used that money to develop their nuclear capabilities. The UN has imposed sanctions upon Iran for greater than 14 years, but the country's leadership hasn't changed direction in its efforts to strengthen their nuclear capabilities, and the sanctions hurt the people of Iran to a far greater extend that the country's leadership.

2006 Washington Post opinion article describing sanctions against Iran:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032902003.html

2003 article criticizing Bill Clinton for his role in North Korea's nuclear program:http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/7/164846.shtml

North Korea and Iran persist as totalitarian regimes in the world. They don't persist as the only two either. They want to nuclearize, and while they may create the perception that they don't have those programs progressing, they have repeatedly demonstrated that they fully intend to continue to do so.

You cannot confront a bully with kindness, and bullies run these totalitarian regimes: Kim Jon Il and Ahmedenejad. When Obama announces his desire for the world to denuclearize, he naively thinks that he will create a world without nuclear weapons. While this may create a pleasing fantasy for free countries, it does not guarantee the non-existence of nuclear weapon programs across every corner of the globe whether conducted by North Korea, Iran, or another country or organization.


Imagine a world where Iran has a nuclear weapon and nobody else does. Think about freedom of speech and religion. Think about equality of women. Think about society as Americans know it.


We could find ourselves as ushering in a new era of totalitarian dominance if President Obama achieve what he wants.