Nancy Pelosi And Karl Marx On "freedom"

[FirefightnRick]

Nancy Pelosi wants to give birth to a new kind of freedom in America -- the freedom from being "job-locked."

In an interview with Rachel Maddow Thursday evening, Pelosi asked Americans to "think" about a bright, new, liberating kind of utopia:

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer, a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance. Or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risks, but not be job-locked because a child has a child has asthma or diabetes or someone in the family is bipolar. You name it, any condition is job-locking.

Maddow was so overwhelmed and smitten with Pelosi's remarks that she posted the interview on her website under the following title: "Finally! Pelosi frames health reform for the win. (Hint: It's about freedom.)"

The problem with Pelosi's remarks, however, is that from hindsight, they are not bright, new, or liberating. On the contrary, almost identical words were penned over a hundred years ago by another champion of economic "freedom": Karl Marx. Marx criticized the private economy because it led to the "renunciation of life and of human needs."

Like Pelosi, Marx was deeply troubled by an economic system that left most people job-locked and unable to satisfy their "human need" to become more authentic. In other words, the more you have to work, said Marx, "the less you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theater or to balls, or to the public house, and the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc."

Marx chastised the middle class in England for being "so incurably debased by self-interest" and thirsty for a "quick profit" that they were incapable of recognizing the alienation from their true selves. Communist society, then, was the cure that could liberate us from our false selves and usher in a new kind of creativity and authenticity. Says Marx:

[C]ommunist society ... regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, as the spirit moves me ..."

This kind of sheer lunacy could have been hatched only by an unemployed academic and journalist like Marx, who, by the way, was supported financially in his authentically job-liberated struggle against capitalism by his wealthy colleague Friedrich Engels. What's most disturbing is the number of wild-eyed crusaders, both then and now, who have fallen for Marx's creative definition of "freedom.".......

Rick

Edited March 24, 2010 by FirefightnRick

[Censored by Laurie]

Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer, a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance. Or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risks, but not be job-locked because a child has a child has asthma or diabetes or someone in the family is bipolar. You name it, any condition is job-locking

Dispute this rationale, especially the part on entrepreneurial-ism, without relying on Marx.

[FirefightnRick]

Dispute this rationale, especially the part on entrepreneurial-ism, without relying on Marx.

We will come November.

Rick

[Censored by Laurie]

We will come November.

Rick

You may well...but that wasn't the question.

[UNT90]

Dispute this rationale, especially the part on entrepreneurial-ism, without relying on Marx.

I'll give it a go.

It's great! No responsibility for me to provide a basic need for my family, because the government will. Whose the government and where do they get that money? Me... and you. So, if I can artsy-fartsy it up without having to worry about paying for a service, because other hard-working people will, why not? As a matter of fact, why don't we all quit our productive jobs with secure benefits and chase our dreams. For me, that dream is being a professional basketball player. I'm over 40? How dare you try and limit my dream by placing an obvious discriminatory label on me!!! THAT'S MY DREAM!! IT'S MY RIGHT!!! I don't have to worry about health care, cause good old CBL will take care of my part. Man, I will feel so good about myself, and that's what it's all about, right?

Socialism/communism is great in theory, but a failure in pratice every single time that it has been enacted. Why? It assumes (Unlike Speaker Pelosi's quote) that everyone will work hard for the same pay and benefits. Human Nature doesn't work that way and never will.

Speaker Pelosi really needs to grow up and become an adult.

EDIT: The soul-sucking effect the increase in taxes for this monstrosity will have on entrepreneurialism will severely limit anyone who wants to start any kind of new business.

Edited March 24, 2010 by UNT90

[Quoner]

We will come November.

Rick

Me too!

[Censored by Laurie]

I'll give it a go.

It's great! No responsibility for me to provide a basic need for my family, because the government will. Whose the government and where do they get that money? Me... and you. So, if I can artsy-fartsy it up without having to worry about paying for a service, because other hard-working people will, why not? As a matter of fact, why don't we all quit our productive jobs with secure benefits and chase our dreams. For me, that dream is being a professional basketball player. I'm over 40? How dare you try and limit my dream by placing an obvious discriminatory label on me!!! THAT'S MY DREAM!! IT'S MY RIGHT!!! I don't have to worry about health care, cause good old CBL will take care of my part. Man, I will feel so good about myself, and that's what it's all about, right?

Socialism/communism is great in theory, but a failure in pratice every single time that it has been enacted. Why? It assumes (Unlike Speaker Pelosi's quote) that everyone will work hard for the same pay and benefits. Human Nature doesn't work that way and never will.

Speaker Pelosi really needs to grow up and become an adult.

EDIT: The soul-sucking effect the increase in taxes for this monstrosity will have on entrepreneurialism will severely limit anyone who wants to start any kind of new business.

So, based on this first paragraph, I suppose speaking on the significance of the arts on society will fall on deaf ears since one can't affix a dollar sign...so lets just move on to business...

Would not the increase in entrepreneurial-ism in and of itself increase government revenue offset the, what are now just assumed, tax increases? More businesses, more employed, more taxes collected?

As to your paragraph on communist theory...do you know who else felt pretty much exactly how you do? I'll give you a hint: he died 127 years ago and had an amazing beard.

[UNT90]

Would not the increase in entrepreneurial-ism in and of itself increase government revenue offset the, what are now just assumed, tax increases? More businesses, more employed, more taxes collected?

This country will not experience an increase in entrepreneurial-ism parallel with a huge increase in taxes. The 2 are mutually exclusive of each other.

Again, great in theory, horrible in practice.

Love the arts, but somebody's got to pay the bills.

[Censored by Laurie]

This country will not experience an increase in entrepreneurial-ism parallel with a huge increase in taxes. The 2 are mutually exclusive of each other.

I don't see how the two would be exclusive of each other. If you increase employment you increase tax revenue without a per capita increase.

[FirefightnRick]

This is the most recent example that I know of a country turning around it's fortunes by lowering it's taxes and increasing incentives for wealth-creating businesses to return.

The Celtic Tiger

In just over a generation, Ireland has evolved from one of the poorest countries in Western Europe to one of the most successful. It has reversed the persistent emigration of its best and brightest and achieved an enviable reputation as a thriving, knowledge-driven economy.

As a result of sustained efforts over many years, the past of declining population, poor living standards, and economic stagnation has been left behind. Ireland now has the second highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita within the European Union (after Luxem­bourg), one-third higher than the EU-25[1] average, and has achieved exceptional growth.....

The population increased by almost 15 percent from 1996 to 2005 in a striking reversal of previous trends. In one year alone (July 2004-June 2005), employment increased by 5 percent. Ireland is now seen as the land of opportunity by many workers from the 10 newest EU member states. Its unemployment rate of 4.4 percent is less than half the EU average. Public budgets are in balance, and foreign investment was equivalent to 17 percent of GDP in 2003.

Ireland achieved this success through a combination of sensible policies and pragmatism. At the heart of these policies was a belief in economic openness to global markets, low tax rates, and invest­ment in education.

Rick

Edited March 24, 2010 by FirefightnRick

[UNTFan23]

I don't see how the two would be exclusive of each other. If you increase employment you increase tax revenue without a per capita increase.

Even if we decrease unemployment to near 0%, what are we going to do about an aging population?

Social Security has reached a point where it paying out more than it is taking in, which means SS obligations must come from somewhere else if it is going to continue the current level of payments.

With the number of people that are going to be working (and therfore paying the lion's share of taxes) will be steadily shrinking due to the retirement of the boomers, how do we maintain the level of entitlement programs without increasing taxes somewhere and not put it on the credit card?

[UNT90]

I don't see how the two would be exclusive of each other. If you increase employment you increase tax revenue without a per capita increase.

You are kidding, right? You are 1) assuming that people will want to start new businesses, and 2) that all of these businesses will be successful.

With the HUGE tax increases coming with this bill, more and more federal regultaions, and a crap economy that is not getting any better, where is the incentive to start a new business?

Tax increases have never increased employment or revenue.

I'm starting to see a pattern of off season instigation in your posts.

Edited March 24, 2010 by UNT90

[Censored by Laurie]

This is the most recent example that I know of a country turning around it's fortunes by lowering it's taxes and increasing incentives for wealth-creating businesses to return.

The Celtic Tiger

Rick

Since we're just gonna ignore the cooperative economic elephant that is the EU in terms of the rise of the Celtic Tiger...I'll just say Ireland has universal health care. And low taxes?

[Censored by Laurie]

You are kidding, right? You are 1) assuming that people will want to start new businesses, and 2) that all of these businesses will be successful.

1. I think is a given...I know I fall directly into the boat of a person working a job he isn't terribly passionate about b/c of its benefits while putting my entrepreneurial wants on hold...and I'm certainly not the only person in that category. 2 is of course always a risk.

With the HUGE tax increases coming with this bill, more and more federal regultaions, and a crap economy that is not getting any better, where is the incentive to start a new business?

A crap economy is the ideal time to start a business. If i had access to affordable health care without my current job I would be off creating business and stimulating the economy.

I'm starting to see a pattern of off season instigation in your posts.

No need for the . I'm not being terribly subtle.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Censored by Laurie

[FirefightnRick]

Since we're just gonna ignore the cooperative economic elephant that is the EU in terms of the rise of the Celtic Tiger...I'll just say Ireland has universal health care. And low taxes?

And they are finding out what a mistake it is to get in bed with the EU. The point though is that Ireland was a toilet for decades economically and turned it around by lowering their taxes, corporate taxes etc.

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

A crap economy is the ideal time to start a business.

Right, as long as it's not your money/capital your creating the business with.

Rick

Edited March 24, 2010 by FirefightnRick

[Censored by Laurie]

And they are finding out what a mistake it is to get in bed with the EU. The point though is that Ireland was a toilet for decades economically and turned it around by lowering their taxes, corporate taxes etc.

Rick

Ireland has been a part of the EU since 1973...your growth period falls entirely within their membership.

[FirefightnRick]

Ireland has been a part of the EU since 1973...your growth period falls entirely within their membership.

I was referring to the latest here.

and this...

Ireland entered the European Monetary Union in 1999 as part of the 1992 Mastricht Treaty. Thus, Ireland dumped the Irish pound (punt) and adopted the euro.

Rick

Edited March 24, 2010 by FirefightnRick

[Censored by Laurie]

I was referring to the latest here.

and this...

Rick

So the 9 years of economic growth from the time of adopting the Euro is the result of low taxes and business incentives...but the fall in 2008 is the result of adopting the Euro...despite the fact that correlates with the world-wide economic down-turn?

Ireland was heavily levied and subsidized by the EU...through-out the time of its growth period. It's very easy to offer up low taxes to fellow Irishmen when German money is building your roads.

This isn't to say in the least that their own policy didn't contribute to growth, but when you cherry-pick information to fit your ideology, ignoring EU contributions for growth and blaming EU policy for decline then you're not forming a legitimate argument.

And it shows you watch way too much cable news.

[yyz28]

All this back and forth aside, I'm looking for the constitutional basis to force citizens to purchase a product simply for existing? We can have the good-idea/bad-idea discussion until we're blue in the face, but if the bill isn't legal under the constitution, isn't all the rational for doing this just pointless?

[CMJ]

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2764

[UNT90]

All this back and forth aside, I'm looking for the constitutional basis to force citizens to purchase a product simply for existing? We can have the good-idea/bad-idea discussion until we're blue in the face, but if the bill isn't legal under the constitution, isn't all the rational for doing this just pointless?

This is the issue that the organizations that wish a court challenge need to stick with. I think that the opposite side of the argument is that no one is denied emergency health care now, so the federal ggovernment at least has the right to demand that people pay for that up front.

Still say very little hope of getting any help from the Supreme Court on this.

[UNT90]

1. I think is a given...I know I fall directly into the boat of a person working a job he isn't terribly passionate about b/c of its benefits while putting my entrepreneurial wants on hold...and I'm certainly not the only person in that category. 2 is of course always a risk.

A crap economy is the ideal time to start a business. If i had access to affordable health care without my current job I would be off creating business and stimulating the economy.

No need for the . I'm not being terribly subtle.

Excuses, Excuses. Get off your dead, hippy ass and ignite this economy!!

I look forward to you starting your own business. It will be nice to be on the same side of the argument with you for a change.

Stay away from the tanning bed business, though, unless you want to pay a 10% "health tax".

Edited March 25, 2010 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

So the 9 years of economic growth from the time of adopting the Euro is the result of low taxes and business incentives...but the fall in 2008 is the result of adopting the Euro...

I didn't say that, you did. It's a fact and documented why their economy turned around. If you want to ignore that, go ahead.

And I can't watch television period without it being cable television. Although I have been considering giving satellite a go.

Rick

[eulesseagle]

Over the last year there has been much discussion concerning the negatives and positives of the new health care bill. Depending upon where one stands on this volitile issue one aspect is that it covers all Americans regardless of pre existing conditions. Conversley, this program will take one-sixth of our G.N.P.. From a Democratic Party point of view do they feel that the Republicans will nulify or abolish the new HCB between now and "IF" the Republicans begin to take control of Congress?? The answer is NO. Reason: History shows that once social programs have been enacted, such as this HCB, LBJ's Great Society (which name was taken from British Fabianism), or FDR's New Deal the opposition party has "NEVER" repealed any of this social legislation once they took power. Currently, the Obama administration wants to, basically, nationalize the financial industry, overhaul and naturalize 30 million illegals by the end of 2010. Begining in 2011 the federal government will have control of our health care (BHO), financial industry (BHO), immigration (BHO), agriculture and cattle (FDR), social security (FDR), medicare/medicade (LBJ), welfare (LBJ) our federalized/subsidized transportation system (various) and all TAXING authority to enforce these social programs. What remains? The media. We all know that the government never estimates taxes correctly.....always lowball's estimates. If the pendelum swings forcefully to the right will the Republicans begin to dismantle this bloated socialized system. I still say no. It is here to stay.