The Good, The Bad, The Ugly [Pt. II]: Democracy, Social Justice, & Conservatism

“We were taught... that man’s business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle... Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago, the question was asked, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.

Yes, I am my brother’s keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality but by the higher duty I owe myself. What would you think me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death?” -- Eugene V. Debs, 1908 speech

Previously, I have looked at justice in general terms, purpsely excluding the role governments play in promoting it. In the following post I will explore the idea of social justice -- the idea that we can create a set of social and political institutions that ensures the just distribution of benefits and costs throughout a society.

The idea first emerged in the late 19^th century, and stood at the heart of political debate throughout the 20^th. It requires that the state become much more involved in justice than earlier times. It was also a controversial idea: whereas only a few extremists have attacked the idea of justice, social justice has been ridiculed, mainly by critics from the libertarian right, who view it as a transgression against personal freedom, especially the economic freedom they feel a market economy requires.

Let’s look at these attacks more closely. Critics such as the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek argued that there was a fundamental error involved in addressing social justice in the first place. According to Hayek (and many self-loathing neocons that call themselves “libertarians” LOL!), justice is a consequence of individual actions. An action is unjust when it violates a general societal rule that allows members of a society to interact with one another. For example, theft is unjust because it violates a rule protecting property. If we look at how resources -- money, property, employment opportunities, and so forth -- are distributed across a society, Hayek maintains, we cannot describe this as either just or unjust, since it is a consequence not from the actions of a single mediator, but from the actions and decisions of millions of separate individuals, none of whom intended to create this or any other outcome in particular.

Jon Voight vs. Barack Obama: The grumpy old troll just keeps on talking

So, like the grumpy old troll, Jon Voight crawled out from under a bridge or California freeway, got on Mike Huckabee's show on Fox and had the following message to deliver to the people of America idiots who watch that channel:



I'll be honest, if it wasn't for one of my readers tipping me off, I would have never known about this. Matter of fact, if it wasn't for that very reader hitting me up on Twitter. I would never had known that this turd was still alive. Shit, I ain't seen this dude in a movie since Deliverance. Which is ironic because the only people feeling his message are the toothless banjo picking knuckle draggers posing as intellectuals in the Tea Party Movement. You know, the same people motivated and moved to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots, since the light skinned brother and his family moved into the White House?

You know, the same people who are of the opinion that Obama has made America less safe by signing the new treaty on nuclear weapons? Yeah, it's as though Obama signed a deal to have everybody around the world dump their plutonium here, so we could drop it off to the Bloods & Crips in Compton. Or that now the nuclear stock pile will be reduced, the Republic of Tonga will finally be able wipe the United States off the map with its new advantage. I mean Obama has been bowing down to kings and shit, so you know this had to happen.

The nerve of this asshat to suggest that people are ignorant to Obama's agenda. Seems to me that the only people ignorant are the very people he represents. The same fools talking about runaway spending and linking it to Obama. When they've been sitting with their thumbs up their asses while George Bush's tax cuts have benefited the wealthy at the expense of the working poor. Don't believe me? Well, check out this recent report from the organization Wealth for the Common Good, titled: Shifting Responsibility: How 50 Years of Tax Cuts Have Benefited America's Wealthiest Taxpayers. Here's a little pertinent information from their site, per the results of the study:

Between 1960 to 2004, the top 0.1 percent of U.S. taxpayers — the wealthiest one in one thousand — have seen the share of their income paid in total federal taxes drop from 60 to 33.6 percent.

America’s highest income-earners — the top 400 — have seen the share of their income they pay in federal income tax alone plummet from 51.2 percent in 1955 to 16.6 percent in 2007, the most recent year with top 400 statistics available.

If the top 400 of 2007 paid as much of their incomes in personal income tax as the top 400 of 1955, the federal treasury would have collected $47.7 billion more in revenue from just these 400 taxpayers.

In 2007, if the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers — Americans with incomes that averaged $7,126,395 — had paid total federal taxes at the same rate as the top 0.1 percent paid these taxes in 1960, the federal treasury would have collected an additional $281.2 billion in revenue.

Tax cuts for the wealthy between 2001-2008 cost the U.S. Treasury $700 billion, with all of these billions added directly to the national debt. Retaining these tax cuts will cost $826 billion over the next decade.

So who is Jon Voight talking to, and who is he really representing? Surely not the ignorant progressives as myself, right? Oh no, he's appealing to the lemmings on the right who find solace in the words of some actor from Hollywood's  Cro-Magnon era who's starving for work, and attention. Yes Jon, America is just that stupid to fall for the lie that is Obama. Lucky for you, they're just as ignorant so as not to see an angry old man projecting his inner frustrations and failings as a father. No wonder his daughter Angelina Jolie doesn't carry his last name nor wants to be bothered by his old decrepit, and cantankerous ass. Surely he's opposed to the Obama administration or more specifically Health Care Reform. Hell, he's already a corpse.

Since nobody wants to listen to the smart negroes, lets spend some time with some smart white dudes, shall we?

A few discussions in a couple recent posts has motivated my "know it all ass" to quickly touch on this issue. That issue would be language or more appropriately how certain words are used in our political lexicon as ideological selling points. Now before I do this, I must tell you that as a gentleman who has spent the last 19yrs working in sales and marketing after leaving college I consider myself to be a master salesman. That said, I tend to listen a lot.

Listening is a tool which is essential for one to effectively communicate thoughts and ideas. Which brings me to the point of this blog. With all the malapropisms within our current political discourse, I feel the need to weigh in on the word "SOCIALISM". For this, I shall employ the words of one of my favorite political scholars, and most quoted political commentator of all time, Noam Chomsky.

Tell 'em about Socialism Noam:

Dang, did you notice where he said true socialism is akin to conservatism as we know it? No seriously, did you catch the breakdown on what socialism really is? I don't know about you, but I get the feeling that "certain people" don't know what the hell they're talking about as they carry around these signs likening Obama's policies to socialism. Or the stupid idea that we're slowly becoming like Russia. No stupid, there is no way we're becoming like Russia.

The problem - aside from people just being downright ignorant - is that people are confusing socialism for a political movement when it's not. It is an economic model and nothing more. That said, what socialist economy gives billions of dollars to failing companies (banks) who eventually turn around and make a profit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Bush and company who came out and scared everyone into thinking that was what had to be done?

But lets talk about Industrial Democracy as brought up by Chomsky:

My bad, I didn't mean to allow my inner Economics geek out the bag. Yeah, you can thank the good folks at Indiana University for all they taught me. But that's neither here nor there. But hey, lets talk about socialism and income equality shall we? Or, lets talk about what Paul Krugman spoke on in the video above. More importantly, lets talk about why republicans are being paid to vote against the Employee Free Choice Act, can we? Or maybe we can talk about why Oil Companies are funding organizations who work against clean energy legislation?

Take your pick...

lets talk.