Well, the first Democratic Debate has ended. It was full of… stuff… The true stars of the debate were definitely Clinton and Sanders as they received the most talking time (it was kind of funny to see Webb complain about it that the entire time too). Much was promised to made “free” if a Democratic president was elected. I’m not going to pretend that Republicans any more “fiscally conservative” though. Both sides of that terrible coin are well… Terrible. For this post, I wanted to run over some of the big central themes that all candidates seemed to thing were good ideas.
Income inequality was a big topic for all of the candidates to pander to. “The rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer.” That seems to be the war cry of these Progressive and their illogical social justice followers love to chant. There is no sound argumentation, just a collection of feel good slogans and mantras for the masses to consume and repeat. The problem is that slogans and feel-good-sayings lack the logical and factual backing needed to actually become feasible economic policy. The logic and facts actually point to the fact that poverty is actually diminishing across the entire planet, not growing.
All of this in spite of the crony capitalism causing havoc today.
I think what a lot of these progressive talking heads lack is perspective. 1,000 years ago, what was the difference between a poor person and the rich elite on the road? The poor person walked, usually without shoes, every where they needed to get to. All the while, the rich person was carried or rode a horse. They may have even had a carriage or wagon of some kind with servants to drive it. Today what is the difference between poor people and rich people on the road. The poor person may have a 1992 Honda civic that they have been keeping alive all of this time where as the rich person drives a Prius or has a personal driver. Even if the poor person lacks a car, they have public transportation or bike, which is still more than what the poor had even 200 years ago.
I’m sure progressives are rolling their eyes right now so lets take this even further. There has actually been a recent study from 2013 by Oxford that shows that global poverty is actually shrinking. Many places like Bangladesh, are projected to see the complete disappearance of total impoverishment within one generation. This, as Donald Trump would say, is “YUUUUGGGEEE”. And if anything, the demonizing of “sweatshops” and other such businesses will only slow this progress. Many of these people work these kinds of jobs in these underdeveloped nations because they are the best there is. In Bangladesh, as an example, they outlawed child labor. Many of these children had to support themselves and their families somehow so they resorted to prostitution. It’s a perfect example of how laws designed to “defeat poverty” never accomplish anything and can actually make the situation worse for those they intend to help.
This also leads me to another point. Sanders, and sociopaths like him, like to point at the income gap between the middle class and poor in America with the rich. They use this justification take “steal form the rich to give to the poor.” Tom Woods up the best challenge to these “Social Justice Warriors”:
“My question to Bernie Sanders supporters:When someone in Bangladesh observes your lifestyle, it seems as incredible to them as that of the 1% seems to you. Why are they not entitled to help themselves to your things, the way you consider yourself morally entitled to help yourself to the goods of the American rich?
In your answer, avoid moral irrelevancies like national borders; can we tolerate inequality just because it’s cross-border?
Extra credit: take a picture of yourself divesting yourself of most of your goods in the name of global equality.”
The “income inequality” argument is simply irrelevant and idiotic. Those that hold to it have no concept of what causes poverty. Nor do they properly apply their logic without contradicting it at some point. Sanders and all those that think like him identify banks as the problem but have no problem defending the largest and most insidious bank of them all, the Federal Reserve.
Capitalism is a Zero Sum Game:
The next piece of rhetoric and propaganda vomited from the mouths of these economic illiterates is the idea that “capitalism” is a zero sum game. That, within the capitalist system, in order for one person to win, another must lose. This is fundamentally false on every possible level. What is capitalism in it’s most basic of forms? It is voluntary exchange.
What system do we have now? Corporatism.
A system where the rich elite enjoy special privileges, granted by government, that others in the economy do not get to enjoy. How do you blame free markets as the cause of undesirable outcomes propagated by the regulations of government?
Capitalism is all about voluntary exchange. Under that principle, everyone wins, otherwise you wouldn’t make the exchange. You have money and I have a product. You think that you would be better off with the product than with the money. I think I would be better off with your money than the product. We then come together, exchange, and walk away winners because we both get what we wanted. Under any other system, the only way to satisfy that need is to steal from someone else. This is precisely the kind of system that Sanders and the others on that stage want to force upon everyone else. A system of legalized plunder.
Here is where the lines between “Republican” and “Democrat” really begin to blur. Hillary sounds like Neo-Conservative with her willingness to use military might to crush anyone that stands in the way of US interests. In fact, Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com had the following tweet last night that made me laugh:
She hates Snowden, loves the Patriot Act, & sez “the Iranians” are her biggest enemies. Is Hillary really Lindsey Graham in drag?
— Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) October 14, 2015
What was interesting is that Sanders noted how when the US topples regimes, it creates a void. He still seems to be in favor of some sort of involvement in toppling Assad and “protecting our allies”. Wow, you sound just like Rand Paul, Bernie!
Not only that but he seems proud of his vote to intervene in Kosovo due to “humanitarian” needs. That should also speak volumes on his foreign policy views. “Humanitarian” has been the pretense to go to war for many modern and unjust conflicts. It’s a political term that can be used to justify anything the U.S. Empire does. Every single one of these candidates said they were prepared to go to war to defend the US and “her allies”. I swear, every republican candidate said the exact same thing…
I just wanted to point out that Hillary is still on the fence when it comes to recreational use of marijuana. Not only that, but she has the nerve to shame pro-lifers for their meddling in the choices and bodies of women and in the same breath, enforce a drug war that decides what you can and can’t put in your own body, regardless of gender.
Statist logic at it’s finest I suppose.
Guns were also brought up and I have tackled that numerous times. In fact, the Fallacy Friday Podcast for this week is on guns, check it out. The Logical Anarchy podcast also has an episode on guns and I wrote this post on guns as well. This thing is just a dead horse progressives don’t want to let go of.
The conclusion should be plain as day! Don’t vote for anyone, Ever. Voting solves nothing. Do you want to know why the debate was so “cordial”? Because there is no difference between any of the candidates. They all agree on the same core issues. Everything will be free, the “rich” will pay for it, and we need more laws to make everyone more free and happy. It’s all absurd logic.