Glen Contrarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,688
- Reaction score
- 8,046
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
There is a political dimension beyond that which is known to logic and reason. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension not of reality, but of imagination. It is an area which we call the Conservative Zone.
Consider the Philippines. Its society is strongly conservative (it's one of the most religious nations on the planet). It has a small, relatively weak government wherein its low-level workers are paid starvation wages. Taxes are paid, but almost, it seems, on a voluntary basis. There is little government regulation to speak of (whether safety, financial, or ethical), for in this nation, the business owner is king, and - short of physical assault or murder - answers to no one. Living wage? Whoever heard of such a thing? Minimum wage? About two dollars per day...and even this law is generally ignored.
Yes, here, the business owner is king, indeed! They are free to keep almost all of what they earn, free to reinvest it where they will. Because of this, the sixteen billionaires (in US$) of this nation work marvels within the local economy - world-class resorts, and some of the largest malls in the world. On a smaller scale, there are hundreds of millionaires, each with multiple homes, many of which would make the McMansions of Malibu look like low-rent subsided housing indeed.
What's more, while there is a local form of 'social security', it's a pittance, barely enough to eat on, much less to afford shelter or clothing. And that is about the sum total of their "social safety net" - in other words, there's almost no social safety net at all. There are absolutely no "welfare queens" or "welfare cadillacs" or "people sitting around waiting for food stamps". So this, too, would mean that there's no slackers living off the dole, forcing the taxpayers to support their lifestyles.
The people here work so hard, too. No one can call them 'lazy' or 'privileged', but as one gets to know them, one sees that in this nation, one can work so hard all their lives just to put food on the table, but never have an opportunity to send their children to college, much less buy a house or a condo. Here, hard work is less of a necessity to success than is knowing the right people, so why work so hard? Because they have to eat. Two dollars, perhaps a little more per day, with no real hope of success in the foreseeable future. This is life in the conservative utopia we call the Philippines.
So is this not real freedom? This nation has had the conservative/libertarian trifecta of small, weak government, low effective taxes, little or no regulation, and no real social safety net since its inception in 1946. Is this not a nation and a society that Ayn Rand herself would have praised as a shining libertarian city on a hill? Indeed she would, if she would consider one of the most poverty-ridden nations on the planet as 'free' and 'successful'.
The Philippines provides a wonderful example of the failure of conservative 'trickle-down' economics...because to paraphrase Al Sharpton, the people got the down, but they never got the trickle. And that is precisely the problem with conservative economic dogma: while the ideas sound so reasonable and the rhetoric seems so logical, in actual practice, there is precisely zero real-world evidence that conservative/libertarian economic practice results in actual prosperity on a national scale. Conversely, there is a wealth of evidence that socialized democracy does indeed bring national prosperity, as is evinced by every first-world democracy on the planet.
Unfortunately, there's simply too many conservatives in America who can't force themselves to set aside their dogma long enough to see what kind of governmental systems actually result in success on a national scale as compared to which don't. It's as if the moment one points out that every first-world democracy on the planet is also a socialized democracy, a switch ticks off - the word "socialism" blinds them to what brings the highest standards of living to national populations. Preserving their belief in what they see in their dreams of a world filled with their dogmatic orthodoxy is more important than seeing what the reality of the world around them.
It is indeed as George Orwell said in 1984: "Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
Consider the Philippines. Its society is strongly conservative (it's one of the most religious nations on the planet). It has a small, relatively weak government wherein its low-level workers are paid starvation wages. Taxes are paid, but almost, it seems, on a voluntary basis. There is little government regulation to speak of (whether safety, financial, or ethical), for in this nation, the business owner is king, and - short of physical assault or murder - answers to no one. Living wage? Whoever heard of such a thing? Minimum wage? About two dollars per day...and even this law is generally ignored.
Yes, here, the business owner is king, indeed! They are free to keep almost all of what they earn, free to reinvest it where they will. Because of this, the sixteen billionaires (in US$) of this nation work marvels within the local economy - world-class resorts, and some of the largest malls in the world. On a smaller scale, there are hundreds of millionaires, each with multiple homes, many of which would make the McMansions of Malibu look like low-rent subsided housing indeed.
What's more, while there is a local form of 'social security', it's a pittance, barely enough to eat on, much less to afford shelter or clothing. And that is about the sum total of their "social safety net" - in other words, there's almost no social safety net at all. There are absolutely no "welfare queens" or "welfare cadillacs" or "people sitting around waiting for food stamps". So this, too, would mean that there's no slackers living off the dole, forcing the taxpayers to support their lifestyles.
The people here work so hard, too. No one can call them 'lazy' or 'privileged', but as one gets to know them, one sees that in this nation, one can work so hard all their lives just to put food on the table, but never have an opportunity to send their children to college, much less buy a house or a condo. Here, hard work is less of a necessity to success than is knowing the right people, so why work so hard? Because they have to eat. Two dollars, perhaps a little more per day, with no real hope of success in the foreseeable future. This is life in the conservative utopia we call the Philippines.
So is this not real freedom? This nation has had the conservative/libertarian trifecta of small, weak government, low effective taxes, little or no regulation, and no real social safety net since its inception in 1946. Is this not a nation and a society that Ayn Rand herself would have praised as a shining libertarian city on a hill? Indeed she would, if she would consider one of the most poverty-ridden nations on the planet as 'free' and 'successful'.
The Philippines provides a wonderful example of the failure of conservative 'trickle-down' economics...because to paraphrase Al Sharpton, the people got the down, but they never got the trickle. And that is precisely the problem with conservative economic dogma: while the ideas sound so reasonable and the rhetoric seems so logical, in actual practice, there is precisely zero real-world evidence that conservative/libertarian economic practice results in actual prosperity on a national scale. Conversely, there is a wealth of evidence that socialized democracy does indeed bring national prosperity, as is evinced by every first-world democracy on the planet.
Unfortunately, there's simply too many conservatives in America who can't force themselves to set aside their dogma long enough to see what kind of governmental systems actually result in success on a national scale as compared to which don't. It's as if the moment one points out that every first-world democracy on the planet is also a socialized democracy, a switch ticks off - the word "socialism" blinds them to what brings the highest standards of living to national populations. Preserving their belief in what they see in their dreams of a world filled with their dogmatic orthodoxy is more important than seeing what the reality of the world around them.
It is indeed as George Orwell said in 1984: "Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
