You came here because you didn’t like it there, but now you want to change here to be like there. Those of us who created here like it the way it is, and most of us prefer it because it’s not like there. Please stop trying to make here like there. If you really like there that much, you should not have left there to come here, and you are invited to leave here and go back there as soon as humanly possible.
The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.
Envy was once considered to be one of the seven deadly sins before it became one of the most admired virtues under its new name, ‘social justice.’
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program.Continue reading “In the name of liberalism”
If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.
Today, of course, the redistributive powers of Congress are everywhere — except in the Constitution. The result is the feeding frenzy that is modern Washington, the Hobbesian war of all against all as each tries to get his share and more of the common pot the tax system fills. … It is unseemly and wrong. More than that, it is unconstitutional, whatever the slim and cowed majority on the New Deal Court may have said.
There is no difference in principle, … between the economic philosophy of Nazism, socialism, communism, and fascism and that of the American welfare state and regulated economy.
If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall be, is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State.
[T]he power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest fonctionaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work? And who will deny that a world in which the wealthy are powerful is still a better world than one in which only the already powerful can acquire wealth?
Brilliance — even genius — is no guarantee that consequential factors have not been left out or misconceived. Karl Marx’s Capital was a classic example of an intellectually masterful elaboration of a fundamental misconception — in this case, the notion that “labor,” the physical handling of the material and instruments of production, is the real source of wealth. Obviously, if this were true, countries with much labor and little technology or entrepreneurship would be more prosperous than countries with the reverse, when in fact it is blatantly obvious that the direct opposite is the case.