In principle - Bromby is against it 100% but the repercussions either way are pretty scary.
If we are to learn anything from US history, it's that in these times of economic crisis politicians (typically from the left, but not always) make the argument that the free market is to blame and that stricter regulations are the answer. True conservatives (including Bromby) assert that it is in fact regulation and government intervention that create these monstrosities.
The financial institutions are the ones taking the blame as well as the 'free market'. My opinions on this matter are best expressed in this quote from the brilliant Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Centre. (full article)
“Most people believe the Great Depression was caused by an ‘excessively’ free market--and they regard the massive expansion of government intervention under FDR as its cure. But as many economists have demonstrated, it was government intervention that caused and exacerbated the Depression--from the massive tariffs of Smoot-Hawley to a series of disastrous interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve to antibusiness measures such as the National Recovery Act.
“Few acknowledged this at the time, however. The Great Depression--a failure of government intervention--was called a failure of capitalism, and was used to justify even more government intervention. We are seeing this same process repeat itself today.
“There is overwhelming evidence that our current crisis is the result primarily of government intervention in the economy, from the Fed’s inflationary policy of keeping interest rates artificially low to the creation and regulatory coddling of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to the government’s quasi-official policy of bailing out large financial institutions deemed too big to fail. But despite such evidence, this crisis is being blamed on too little government control of markets, and is being used to justify an even greater expansion of the state’s control over financial markets."
I have little doubt that increased restrictive regulation will be prescribed as the cure for this disaster as well, but instead of FDR administering the treatment it could well be the defining moment of Barack Obama's presidency.
- Bromby
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Stephen Harper Cuts Funding for the Arts
There is a lot of raucous uproar about the funding cuts to the arts in Canada by current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Here's Bromby's opinion. This one steams me a little...
Bromby appreciates the arts, he has a degree in dramatic arts and a background in the theatre. The arts thrive because we live in a fairly prosperous society that enjoys being entertained and values art. Most of these people do not mind paying to be entertained or to pay for books, movies, music etc.
Good art has an audience and gets 'funding' from the people who appreciate it.
Bad art has no audience and needs 'funding' from people with pull in government.
Cutting funding to the arts does not hurt good art - it simply makes being a crappy artist an unsustainable career. We don't need more crappy artists.
OK 'crappy' is a subjective term - so then how is it decided who get funding and who doesn't? Are you telling me the government has a system of determining which artists are worthy of funding? People argue that just because art is not commercially successful, does not mean it doesn't have merit. The artist should be allowed to pursue the noble cause of art for art's sake, and the hard working store owner and police officer should foot the bill through their taxes for these delicate geniuses who are simply too precious to do real work.
People argue that the free market is cruel to artists - because it degrades the complexity of the artistic human soul to produce 'commercial' art. 'Commercial' simply means art that someone else would actually value and be willing to pay for. I hate to generalize but if no one would value it or pay for it- isn't that art simply bad? Why should hard working Canadians subsidize the decadent lifestyle of the artist pretentiously producing art for their own amusement and for the amusement of a minute group of elitists that feel the tastes of the general public are not sophisticated enough to appreciate it.
Art that is produced only for the gratification of the artist is masturbation - why not have the government subsidize that too?
- Bromby
Here's Bromby's opinion. This one steams me a little...
Bromby appreciates the arts, he has a degree in dramatic arts and a background in the theatre. The arts thrive because we live in a fairly prosperous society that enjoys being entertained and values art. Most of these people do not mind paying to be entertained or to pay for books, movies, music etc.
Good art has an audience and gets 'funding' from the people who appreciate it.
Bad art has no audience and needs 'funding' from people with pull in government.
Cutting funding to the arts does not hurt good art - it simply makes being a crappy artist an unsustainable career. We don't need more crappy artists.
OK 'crappy' is a subjective term - so then how is it decided who get funding and who doesn't? Are you telling me the government has a system of determining which artists are worthy of funding? People argue that just because art is not commercially successful, does not mean it doesn't have merit. The artist should be allowed to pursue the noble cause of art for art's sake, and the hard working store owner and police officer should foot the bill through their taxes for these delicate geniuses who are simply too precious to do real work.
People argue that the free market is cruel to artists - because it degrades the complexity of the artistic human soul to produce 'commercial' art. 'Commercial' simply means art that someone else would actually value and be willing to pay for. I hate to generalize but if no one would value it or pay for it- isn't that art simply bad? Why should hard working Canadians subsidize the decadent lifestyle of the artist pretentiously producing art for their own amusement and for the amusement of a minute group of elitists that feel the tastes of the general public are not sophisticated enough to appreciate it.
Art that is produced only for the gratification of the artist is masturbation - why not have the government subsidize that too?
- Bromby
Monday, September 22, 2008
Capitalism - the other "C" word
Conservative Ideals need to be defended on the intellectual level or we are doomed to failure. As implied by the title of my blog too many conservatives base their convictions on faith. The term 'compassionate conservatism' has arisen recently out of an undeserved sense of guilt many conservatives have in the face of an onslaught of finger wagging from liberals. As much as we feel firm in our convictions there is a nagging doubt inside that constantly asks- "are we really a bunch of big meanies?" This is an admission that we feel there is something fundamentally wrong with capitalism, that at its core it is a corrupt principle and a 'necessary evil' that we must accept until we find a better way.
It is this very notion that capitalism is inherently evil that we must do away with entirely. We cannot defend a principle that we feel is morally flawed, because we are already defeated before we enter the debate. Rather than evading the fundamental arguments against capitalism let us meet them head on, one at a time. Let's level with our critics.
Capitalism is a system where purely selfish activity is rewarded. I'm a business owner and the time, energy and creativity I pour into my business is for purely, indiluted selfish motives. There is nothing more engaging and satisfying than working on something that is completely your own, to have complete control of your own success and to be able to reap the rewards of it. I make enormous sacrifices in terms of the time and money I've invested in this venture. I've spent the last six years of my life on this and have had many months where everyone in the company gets paid except me. I have spent months where the 72 hour week is standard, and I've liquidated my savings and maxed out my credit on numerous occasions. I've risked financial ruin with nothing on my side except the conviction that what I was doing was of value and that it must succeed. There was no guarantee, no safety net. The risks and the rewards were mine alone.
There were years when my company showed a profit but the government has swooped in and taxed away any opportunity to grow my business by hiring sales and support staff. Yet I can honestly say without a hint of sarcasm that I did all of this selfishly. I did all of this because every experience, every failure and every victory is mine. This is at the heart of the spirit of entrepreneurship. The profit motive is a fundamental part of this, but it pales in comparison to the feeling of ownership. To know that this company is mine and that every dollar earned is truly earned is central to the morality of the entreprenuer. I would rather earn 1 dollar as an honest business owner, than two dollars as a salaried employee or ten dollars as an executive with political pull, or a 100 dollars as a worthless heir.
Also fundemental to this motivation is the fact that there is no limit to how much money can be made. If I can provide millions of dollars worth of value to clients who choose my product over others without deception or coersion, then I deserve the millions of dollars that they pay me - period. I want to be rich - and I want to earn it.
Let's stop apologizing for wanting to be rich. There is nothing vulgar about it. It takes courage to be honest with one's self and truly strive for what your want. Is there any wonder we are scorned by those who choose mediocrity and achieve it? I am an entrepreneur for my own selfish reasons - not for the betterment of society. The fact that my company benefits society by creating jobs, paying taxes and providing a needed service is great, but it is not the reason that I do it. I am not the government's "partner in the private sector". I am not a resource for them to draw upon to help bureaucratic bigshots repair social ills. I am not doing this to 'give back' to society.
Liberals view corporations as some kind of natural resource that has sprung into existence as if from nowhere - like oxygen or water, and should be 'reigned in', tamed and controlled by the government for the greater good. From the point of view of the entrepreneur this is a vile and offensive notion. It is this viewpoint that sparked the bolshevik revolution allowing the state to nationalize private enterprise and murder millions of middle class business owners. Marx's use of the term 'owners of the means of production' made it sound like the business owners were appropriating a resource for themselves that belonged to all, like the fat kid in grade school taking too long at the water fountain.
Corporations are private property, created by the productive work and risk of capable individuals. Some corporations rise to power through a grotesque relationship with government where special laws and favours are granted to certain parties effectively creating a monopoly and destroying competitors. This is not free enterprise, though free enterprise always takes the blame for such monstrosities. This is not the fault of the corporation, but an illustration of the evils of government intervention. Only governments can create laws. Private individuals (and corporations) do not have ability to create a law to do things by force - so the only way we have of dealing with people is through mutual consent. To paraphrase Ayn Rand - money is not the root of all evil, money is a contract between two honest parties to exchange something of value. When given the alternative to achieve one's goals through mutual consent (trade) or brute force (government & laws) there is only one moral option.
- Bromby
It is this very notion that capitalism is inherently evil that we must do away with entirely. We cannot defend a principle that we feel is morally flawed, because we are already defeated before we enter the debate. Rather than evading the fundamental arguments against capitalism let us meet them head on, one at a time. Let's level with our critics.
Capitalism is a system where purely selfish activity is rewarded. I'm a business owner and the time, energy and creativity I pour into my business is for purely, indiluted selfish motives. There is nothing more engaging and satisfying than working on something that is completely your own, to have complete control of your own success and to be able to reap the rewards of it. I make enormous sacrifices in terms of the time and money I've invested in this venture. I've spent the last six years of my life on this and have had many months where everyone in the company gets paid except me. I have spent months where the 72 hour week is standard, and I've liquidated my savings and maxed out my credit on numerous occasions. I've risked financial ruin with nothing on my side except the conviction that what I was doing was of value and that it must succeed. There was no guarantee, no safety net. The risks and the rewards were mine alone.
There were years when my company showed a profit but the government has swooped in and taxed away any opportunity to grow my business by hiring sales and support staff. Yet I can honestly say without a hint of sarcasm that I did all of this selfishly. I did all of this because every experience, every failure and every victory is mine. This is at the heart of the spirit of entrepreneurship. The profit motive is a fundamental part of this, but it pales in comparison to the feeling of ownership. To know that this company is mine and that every dollar earned is truly earned is central to the morality of the entreprenuer. I would rather earn 1 dollar as an honest business owner, than two dollars as a salaried employee or ten dollars as an executive with political pull, or a 100 dollars as a worthless heir.
Also fundemental to this motivation is the fact that there is no limit to how much money can be made. If I can provide millions of dollars worth of value to clients who choose my product over others without deception or coersion, then I deserve the millions of dollars that they pay me - period. I want to be rich - and I want to earn it.
Let's stop apologizing for wanting to be rich. There is nothing vulgar about it. It takes courage to be honest with one's self and truly strive for what your want. Is there any wonder we are scorned by those who choose mediocrity and achieve it? I am an entrepreneur for my own selfish reasons - not for the betterment of society. The fact that my company benefits society by creating jobs, paying taxes and providing a needed service is great, but it is not the reason that I do it. I am not the government's "partner in the private sector". I am not a resource for them to draw upon to help bureaucratic bigshots repair social ills. I am not doing this to 'give back' to society.
Liberals view corporations as some kind of natural resource that has sprung into existence as if from nowhere - like oxygen or water, and should be 'reigned in', tamed and controlled by the government for the greater good. From the point of view of the entrepreneur this is a vile and offensive notion. It is this viewpoint that sparked the bolshevik revolution allowing the state to nationalize private enterprise and murder millions of middle class business owners. Marx's use of the term 'owners of the means of production' made it sound like the business owners were appropriating a resource for themselves that belonged to all, like the fat kid in grade school taking too long at the water fountain.
Corporations are private property, created by the productive work and risk of capable individuals. Some corporations rise to power through a grotesque relationship with government where special laws and favours are granted to certain parties effectively creating a monopoly and destroying competitors. This is not free enterprise, though free enterprise always takes the blame for such monstrosities. This is not the fault of the corporation, but an illustration of the evils of government intervention. Only governments can create laws. Private individuals (and corporations) do not have ability to create a law to do things by force - so the only way we have of dealing with people is through mutual consent. To paraphrase Ayn Rand - money is not the root of all evil, money is a contract between two honest parties to exchange something of value. When given the alternative to achieve one's goals through mutual consent (trade) or brute force (government & laws) there is only one moral option.
- Bromby
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
My Favourite DJ?
The moment the DJ with a turntable replaced the electric guitar player as the dominant musician of popular music, is about the moment Bromby checked out of the music scene.
I feel pretty old when I hear people a decade younger than me talk about their favourite DJ. My honest reaction is "You mean there are other DJs besides Jazzy Jeff?!?!?!"
No matter who your favourite DJ is I guarantee that Angus Young & David Gilmour would dominate them in a bare-knuckle bar brawl.
I also heard some dudes talking about how Trent Resnor from Nine Inch Nails is ten times the musician that Paul McCartney is. I noticeably winced while resisting the urge to 'correct' them.
- Bromby
I feel pretty old when I hear people a decade younger than me talk about their favourite DJ. My honest reaction is "You mean there are other DJs besides Jazzy Jeff?!?!?!"
No matter who your favourite DJ is I guarantee that Angus Young & David Gilmour would dominate them in a bare-knuckle bar brawl.
I also heard some dudes talking about how Trent Resnor from Nine Inch Nails is ten times the musician that Paul McCartney is. I noticeably winced while resisting the urge to 'correct' them.
- Bromby
Monday, September 8, 2008
Hey Atheists - Put away the pitchforks & torches!
Bromby is an atheist, yet I just can't hang around other atheists. I think that the pseudo sense of superiority that most atheists feel they have over Christians is laughable. The arrogance, militance and ignorance these so called rationalists exude far exceeds those very qualities that they claim is the sole domain of the religious right.
Don't get me wrong, I've met my share fundamentalist religious twits. I strongly disagree with evangelical Christians on many issues like gay marriage, abortion rights and especially the teaching of creationism as science. However given the choice between living in a neighbourhood filled with honest, hard working church-going folk or the militant, uber-pretentious new atheists that's a no brainer.
Many of the atheists out there are philosophically lazy. I can congratulate them on the fact that I feel they've come to one correct conclusion in that reason is superior to faith. However atheists seem to stop the rational thought process there. They reason that because the religious are wrong about that critical premise of faith, the rest of their convictions: moral, political and other must also be wrong. Capitalism and conservatism are guilty by association, because these along with Judeo-Christian morals are fundamental values of the religious right. Quite often, atheists are simply amoral people who reject religion strictly because it clashes with their complete lack of values. I for one feel it is possible to be atheist and completely moral, but very few manage to strike that balance.
Richard Dawkins is the new messiah of the atheists, as people are gobbling up his new militant view condemning Christianity & religion in general. I wish I could say that I read his book, but I don't need a 500 page volume to convince me that God doesn't exist. All this book serves to do for atheists is put them in a self induced trance reinforcing their feeling of superiority and depicting the religious and unreasoning subhuman creatures and giving them permission to despise them. Scapegoat anyone? The level of indignance towards the faithful is quite unsettling. I'm asking atheists out there to chill out a little and come down from that high horse. We all have memories of some religious figure in our lives who was less than saintly, whether its some mean psychotic nun we remember from school days or an authoritarian parent of a friend. That's no reason to generalize all religious people as (ahem) devils. From my experience Christians can be really terrific, and surprisingly laid back people, while atheists can be pretty wound up and smug. To contrast with the demonic image many atheists have Bromby will also point out: Christians flirt, Christians get drunk, Christians can tell a mean dirty joke, Christians can party, Christians rock & roll (although sadly sometimes that means Christian rock), Christians definitely work hard, Christians love life and their families.
If that somehow clashes with the one dimensional portrait of a gun-toting, bible thumping, authoritarian, kool-aid drinking persona you have in your mind perhaps you need to expand your universe a little.
I may have an ulterior motive in writing this. I vote conservative - because the principles of capitalism, liberty and the free market are too valuable and rational to discard simply because it is also prized by the religious right. If you atheists are advocates of reason and objectivity as you claim to be, you should also come to the conclusion that Bromby did and become secular conservatives. If you have any questions, just drop me a line in the comments section.
-Bromby
Don't get me wrong, I've met my share fundamentalist religious twits. I strongly disagree with evangelical Christians on many issues like gay marriage, abortion rights and especially the teaching of creationism as science. However given the choice between living in a neighbourhood filled with honest, hard working church-going folk or the militant, uber-pretentious new atheists that's a no brainer.
Many of the atheists out there are philosophically lazy. I can congratulate them on the fact that I feel they've come to one correct conclusion in that reason is superior to faith. However atheists seem to stop the rational thought process there. They reason that because the religious are wrong about that critical premise of faith, the rest of their convictions: moral, political and other must also be wrong. Capitalism and conservatism are guilty by association, because these along with Judeo-Christian morals are fundamental values of the religious right. Quite often, atheists are simply amoral people who reject religion strictly because it clashes with their complete lack of values. I for one feel it is possible to be atheist and completely moral, but very few manage to strike that balance.
Richard Dawkins is the new messiah of the atheists, as people are gobbling up his new militant view condemning Christianity & religion in general. I wish I could say that I read his book, but I don't need a 500 page volume to convince me that God doesn't exist. All this book serves to do for atheists is put them in a self induced trance reinforcing their feeling of superiority and depicting the religious and unreasoning subhuman creatures and giving them permission to despise them. Scapegoat anyone? The level of indignance towards the faithful is quite unsettling. I'm asking atheists out there to chill out a little and come down from that high horse. We all have memories of some religious figure in our lives who was less than saintly, whether its some mean psychotic nun we remember from school days or an authoritarian parent of a friend. That's no reason to generalize all religious people as (ahem) devils. From my experience Christians can be really terrific, and surprisingly laid back people, while atheists can be pretty wound up and smug. To contrast with the demonic image many atheists have Bromby will also point out: Christians flirt, Christians get drunk, Christians can tell a mean dirty joke, Christians can party, Christians rock & roll (although sadly sometimes that means Christian rock), Christians definitely work hard, Christians love life and their families.
If that somehow clashes with the one dimensional portrait of a gun-toting, bible thumping, authoritarian, kool-aid drinking persona you have in your mind perhaps you need to expand your universe a little.
I may have an ulterior motive in writing this. I vote conservative - because the principles of capitalism, liberty and the free market are too valuable and rational to discard simply because it is also prized by the religious right. If you atheists are advocates of reason and objectivity as you claim to be, you should also come to the conclusion that Bromby did and become secular conservatives. If you have any questions, just drop me a line in the comments section.
-Bromby
Friday, September 5, 2008
Why The Daily Show Sucks
I found this little uncredited nugget on the web :
The Daily Show in a nutshell:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clip of Bush pausing mid-sentence while delivering a speech.
Shot of Stewart with eyebrow raised.
Audience screams for twenty-nine minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------
this gave me a chuckle and I ended up screaming for twenty-nine minutes after reading this.
- Bromby
The Daily Show in a nutshell:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clip of Bush pausing mid-sentence while delivering a speech.
Shot of Stewart with eyebrow raised.
Audience screams for twenty-nine minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------
this gave me a chuckle and I ended up screaming for twenty-nine minutes after reading this.
- Bromby
Premature Philanthropy
Who doesn’t love philanthropy? Great recent examples are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who are giving Billions to Africa out of their own free will. I mean even the most cynical leftist would have to applaud that. Actually leftists are remarkably dismissive of the phenomenon (are you shocked?).
1. Why did Warren Buffett wait so long – I mean he had the luxury of enjoying his wealth his whole life – why is he only giving the money away now?
2. Bill Gates made his money through an evil monopolistic corporation and he’s just trying to alleviate his well deserved guilt by giving a token gesture to Africa
Wow – the left has found a way to take the joy out of even the most altruistic of gestures. According to them the wealthy can’t claim any credit for being philanthropic because they are doing so from a position of strength and convenience. The ultimate leftist ideal for philanthropy comes in the form of someone who is not wealthy or productive, yet manages to divert wealth to those people (and causes) in need.
Ladies and gents, allow me to introduce the premature philanthropist, AKA the social activist. Why wait till you've earned a fortune before being a philanthropist when you can do it right now? Why go through the bother of actually earning money to give away when its so much easier to act like a big shot and give away other people's money?
I’ve met a fair share of people barely out of college who have the title ‘activist’ on their business card. Yep – they actually have business cards and people are paying them. How do these college grad slackers get cooshy jobs and the ability to divert wealth to the needy? Are they just that much smarter than the rest of us? Do they have a brilliant mind for investing, or do they run a business on the side? Maybe they work full time by day and dispense wealth by moonlight – like a caped philanthropic crusader!
Nope – these guys are philanthropic, but they are being generous with your money not their own.
To be fair not all activists get a cooshy activist position appointed to them by a politically funded ‘think-tank’ most of them are the professional protesters. Whenever you catch some protest rally on TV you can quite often see the same dour faces over and over – no matter what the cause. “If there’s something to protest I’ll be there.” Protesters have a lot of time on their hands and for a variety of reasons and most do not need to work for a living. By definition this makes them an upper class. Whether they collect some sort of government check, or if they’ve inherited money – they don’t have to work and you do. These are the guys that want to decide how your money should be spent, and almost always they want you to give more of it.
The premature philanthropist can come in many forms: the white collar politically funded think tanker, the do-gooder government bureaucrat or the bottom feeding protester. All of them demand that more of your money go to the government and all of them have their own unique and wonderful ideas of how it should be distributed. And should that end be achieved they also want to receive the credit for it. They want all the perks of philanthropy without having to do any productive work.
From my experience the wealthy and productive are very giving people. In fact it gives productive people great joy to give to a cause that they value. However the left wants to destroy that pure joy of philanthropy. When the act of giving no longer becomes a voluntary act – it becomes our duty and we are no longer allowed to take credit for it. We also lose the choice in how that money is spent – it can be given to any number of social causes that we don’t care for or agree with.
Bromby submits the following:
If you lower taxes – wealth and prosperity will increase, and so will philanthropic giving – except that it will be voluntary. Most rich people are very sentimental and grateful people and they want the world to be a better place. From my experience you don’t become wealthy by being Ebenezer Scrooge. The truth is that the majority of middle and upper class individuals give significantly to charity in addition to the huge sums of money they pay in taxes. By choosing where you money goes people are likely to give to organizations that can make your philanthropic dollar go the farthest rather than entrusting that job to the (ahem) government.
- Bromby
1. Why did Warren Buffett wait so long – I mean he had the luxury of enjoying his wealth his whole life – why is he only giving the money away now?
2. Bill Gates made his money through an evil monopolistic corporation and he’s just trying to alleviate his well deserved guilt by giving a token gesture to Africa
Wow – the left has found a way to take the joy out of even the most altruistic of gestures. According to them the wealthy can’t claim any credit for being philanthropic because they are doing so from a position of strength and convenience. The ultimate leftist ideal for philanthropy comes in the form of someone who is not wealthy or productive, yet manages to divert wealth to those people (and causes) in need.
Ladies and gents, allow me to introduce the premature philanthropist, AKA the social activist. Why wait till you've earned a fortune before being a philanthropist when you can do it right now? Why go through the bother of actually earning money to give away when its so much easier to act like a big shot and give away other people's money?
I’ve met a fair share of people barely out of college who have the title ‘activist’ on their business card. Yep – they actually have business cards and people are paying them. How do these college grad slackers get cooshy jobs and the ability to divert wealth to the needy? Are they just that much smarter than the rest of us? Do they have a brilliant mind for investing, or do they run a business on the side? Maybe they work full time by day and dispense wealth by moonlight – like a caped philanthropic crusader!
Nope – these guys are philanthropic, but they are being generous with your money not their own.
To be fair not all activists get a cooshy activist position appointed to them by a politically funded ‘think-tank’ most of them are the professional protesters. Whenever you catch some protest rally on TV you can quite often see the same dour faces over and over – no matter what the cause. “If there’s something to protest I’ll be there.” Protesters have a lot of time on their hands and for a variety of reasons and most do not need to work for a living. By definition this makes them an upper class. Whether they collect some sort of government check, or if they’ve inherited money – they don’t have to work and you do. These are the guys that want to decide how your money should be spent, and almost always they want you to give more of it.
The premature philanthropist can come in many forms: the white collar politically funded think tanker, the do-gooder government bureaucrat or the bottom feeding protester. All of them demand that more of your money go to the government and all of them have their own unique and wonderful ideas of how it should be distributed. And should that end be achieved they also want to receive the credit for it. They want all the perks of philanthropy without having to do any productive work.
From my experience the wealthy and productive are very giving people. In fact it gives productive people great joy to give to a cause that they value. However the left wants to destroy that pure joy of philanthropy. When the act of giving no longer becomes a voluntary act – it becomes our duty and we are no longer allowed to take credit for it. We also lose the choice in how that money is spent – it can be given to any number of social causes that we don’t care for or agree with.
Bromby submits the following:
If you lower taxes – wealth and prosperity will increase, and so will philanthropic giving – except that it will be voluntary. Most rich people are very sentimental and grateful people and they want the world to be a better place. From my experience you don’t become wealthy by being Ebenezer Scrooge. The truth is that the majority of middle and upper class individuals give significantly to charity in addition to the huge sums of money they pay in taxes. By choosing where you money goes people are likely to give to organizations that can make your philanthropic dollar go the farthest rather than entrusting that job to the (ahem) government.
- Bromby
Monday, September 1, 2008
GIVE
There is a subtle misuse of language that has been bothering me a lot lately. Recently the just-nominated Barack Obama used it again when he spoke about (paraphrasing) "the old disproven conservative doctrine that if you give more to the richest, wealth in turn will trickle down to everyone else.” I hear it again when Canada’s Liberal Leader Stephan Dion talks about how our current conservative government is giving the wealthiest Canadians billions of dollars in tax breaks – rewarding the members of society who need it the least.
Sigh. Politics...
My problem is with the use of the word ‘give’. I don’t have a dictionary handy, but let me try to feel this definition out myself. To give means to effectively pass ownership of something to another party. It is of course implied that the first party must have ownership of that thing in order to pass it on to that second party. Simple right? I can’t give something to you that belongs to someone else, and I certainly can’t give you something that is already yours.
Yet when the government reduces taxation on a certain group of people- why is that the same as ‘giving’ them money? Doesn’t that just mean that they are stealing less of the money that they earned honestly and fairly? If some guy breaks into your house and steals your laptop, television and DVD collection, but he lets you keep your jewellery – did he effectively ‘give’ you that jewellery? According to liberal linguistics he did. According to liberals the thief just gave you jewellery that could have been used for the common good. Apparently you weren't that needy, after all you're the type of guy who can afford jewellery in the first place!
This goes beyond the government's Robin Hood mentality of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I mean even Robin Hood admitted that he was stealing. Now the language has flipped so that if Robin Hood doesn’t clean you out completely for the good of the granola munching twits in Sherwood Forest he’s effectively ‘giving’ you the stuff he didn’t steal. So does that mean we have so say thanks?
Thanks for stealing my car, but not burning my house down.
Thanks for kicking me in the stomach instead of the crotch.
This is a frightening perversion of the word 'give' to mean something completely foreign to what it really means. We have to be vigilant on this use of language because it becomes accepted by the public so quickly. The fight for your personal liberty needs to be fought on an intellectual level first.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on other ways our language is being distorted.
- Bromby
Sigh. Politics...
My problem is with the use of the word ‘give’. I don’t have a dictionary handy, but let me try to feel this definition out myself. To give means to effectively pass ownership of something to another party. It is of course implied that the first party must have ownership of that thing in order to pass it on to that second party. Simple right? I can’t give something to you that belongs to someone else, and I certainly can’t give you something that is already yours.
Yet when the government reduces taxation on a certain group of people- why is that the same as ‘giving’ them money? Doesn’t that just mean that they are stealing less of the money that they earned honestly and fairly? If some guy breaks into your house and steals your laptop, television and DVD collection, but he lets you keep your jewellery – did he effectively ‘give’ you that jewellery? According to liberal linguistics he did. According to liberals the thief just gave you jewellery that could have been used for the common good. Apparently you weren't that needy, after all you're the type of guy who can afford jewellery in the first place!
This goes beyond the government's Robin Hood mentality of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I mean even Robin Hood admitted that he was stealing. Now the language has flipped so that if Robin Hood doesn’t clean you out completely for the good of the granola munching twits in Sherwood Forest he’s effectively ‘giving’ you the stuff he didn’t steal. So does that mean we have so say thanks?
Thanks for stealing my car, but not burning my house down.
Thanks for kicking me in the stomach instead of the crotch.
This is a frightening perversion of the word 'give' to mean something completely foreign to what it really means. We have to be vigilant on this use of language because it becomes accepted by the public so quickly. The fight for your personal liberty needs to be fought on an intellectual level first.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on other ways our language is being distorted.
- Bromby
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
