Skip to Navigation | Skip to Content

think4yourself

girlwithalessonplan:

fishingboatproceeds:

newsweek:

David Mamet writes this week’s cover story on GUNS. Here’s an excerpt:

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.
For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”
All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.
Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.
As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.
President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”
But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?
It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm†, Newsweek

Pro tip: You lose 100% of your credibility 100% of the time when you use the word “slavery” to describe anything other than slavery.
Further Pro Tip: There are already MANY weapons that private citizens are legally prohibited from owning, like for instance nuclear warheads. If preventing the extinction of the human species is unconstitutional, then we should amend the constitution in a hurry.
Sad to see Newsweek stoop to linkbait tabloiding in its shift to digital, although maybe this sort of thing is inevitable. I’ve reluctantly unfollowed their tumblr.

Two writers, both alike in dignity, in fair tumblr, where we lay our scene…

Best comment ever…

girlwithalessonplan:

fishingboatproceeds:

newsweek:

David Mamet writes this week’s cover story on GUNS. Here’s an excerpt:

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.

As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

Pro tip: You lose 100% of your credibility 100% of the time when you use the word “slavery” to describe anything other than slavery.

Further Pro Tip: There are already MANY weapons that private citizens are legally prohibited from owning, like for instance nuclear warheads. If preventing the extinction of the human species is unconstitutional, then we should amend the constitution in a hurry.

Sad to see Newsweek stoop to linkbait tabloiding in its shift to digital, although maybe this sort of thing is inevitable. I’ve reluctantly unfollowed their tumblr.

Two writers, both alike in dignity, in fair tumblr, where we lay our scene…

Best comment ever…

All Notes

  1. carry-on-my-weyward-sisters reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds and added:
    Thank the world for common sense and John Green. Articles like David Mamet’s are exactly what give journalists around...
  2. wrackspurthunter reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds
  3. wh0a-bitch reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds
  4. retro704 reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds
  5. scarredskinandsacredsoul reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds
  6. heartshapedchickennuggets reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds and added:
    Note to John Green:With 7 billion as our world population, we’re not in any danger of extiction.
  7. cisappointing reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds
  8. wickedwitch-ofthemidwest reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds
  9. puppy-eater reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds
  10. wicked-dance reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds and added:
    Why say anything more when John has said it all.
  11. emptybottlesandcigaretteends reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds and added:
    There are so many more issues with this piece as well. Like, for example, the claim that the government thinks that...
  12. photophotos reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds
  13. dizzi-hurricane reblogged this from fishingboatproceeds