I just noticed when it was I last visited Blogger. Great Googly Moogly, it's been a few weeks! Sure, I went off to Puerto Rico for a week, but that was at the beginning of November. Since my return, I haven't done much of anything to interact with you, my faithful readers. The two of you. This absence is completely unacceptable, even though a basketball team has more people than I have followers. No excuse. Still, I would have preferred writing something with no redeeming social value instead of this (of course, some of you may think the following has no redeeming social value, either).
Socialism according to Merriam-Webster, which has been around since the Adams Administration (The John Quincy Adams administration. He was a sucky president who was succeeded by Andrew Jackson, a wild racist. I'm thinking sucky was preferable):
1. Any of various economic and political
theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of
the means of production and distribution of goods.
| Wrong Collective |
| Closer, but...yikes. |
2. A system of society or group living in which
there is no private property.
What
may surprise some of you out there, I think Socialism is an outstanding idea.
In
theory.
After
all, all for one and one for all is a wonderful concept. Like a [non] dysfunctional family, we really would
tend to our fellow man under the noble idea of "from each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs."
| "Hey, that's kinda catchy. Mind if I use it?" NOTE: for those who went to New Jersey public schools, this is Karl Marx, lesser known Marx brother and Father of Communism |
Theoretically,
who could argue with that?
The
only problem with Socialism (despite the empty-headed ninnies claiming real Socialism
has never been tried) is that it, by necessity, must involve human beings. And, sadly, a substantial number of these
humans are worthless slack-asses. They certainly
do have needs (well, according to them), but their only abilities are suckling
at the teat of Big Brother. They're
content to watch "poor saps" schlep off to work while they lay around
on their spotty behinds and applaud Whoopi and Joy squealing from the trough.
| "Did he just call us pigs?" "Speak for yourself, Mophead." |
To them, it's patently ridiculous to put on pants and head off to some job (a three-letter four-letter word). The checks will keep coming, thank you very much. Earning a living is for suckers. I've got Call of Duty to play, yo.
The
only problem with that is...eventually, the working stiffs will look at Mickey
Man-Bun and wonder why they should go to work anymore. If he can get paid for laying about, well why
not me?
Eventually,
everyone's in the cart and nobody is pulling.
If you
doubt any of this, how many folks were all too willing to receive government largesse
for remaining at home? Yes, yes, I
know. COVID. Still, there's a whole lotta "Hiring"
signs out there, don'tcha know. What's
more, how many hoboes do you see on the median, their hands out? I dunno, seems like a good way to make a buck
to me. If you know, don't want to submit
an application.
I'm genuinely
sorry to all you believers in mankind out there. I sincerely wish everyone had an equal desire
to help their fellow man or woman. That
they would look upon a stranger with the same beneficence as a beloved
child. But, it ain't so.
It's basic human nature for some to be schmucks. Unfortunately, this has been the way of the world since the dawn of history and will continue to be so until an asteroid takes us out. Unless someone dusts off their recipe for Soylent Green.
"IT'S PEOPLE!!!!!"
Yes, utopia
should be the ideal toward which we strive.
I would never argue that it shouldn't be. It's just that I know it will never be so.
Capitalism
is far from a perfect system. However,
it is the best one we have. Competition
for goods and services drive the engine of our society. Sure, there's corruption. Sure, there's going to be people who take
advantage of others.
The
same could be said for those wedded to the idea of an America with no personal
property and a government controlling every bit of our lives.
If
empty-headed boobs like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez get their way, does anyone
honestly think she will empty her savings account to help the downtrodden? Will Chuck Schumer open his house to an
illegal immigrant family? Will Bernie
Sanders donate one of his homes to the homeless?
Of
course not. And neither should
they.
It's just
that I don't want to subsidize someone on their couch while the "beautiful
people" still get to live in their luxury dachas and jet off to France for global warming conferences. I'd like to
enjoy the fruits of my labor, if it's not too much to ask.
In
short....
Liberals envision a world
where all are brothers and sisters working to their mutual betterment. I honestly wish they were right.
Conservatives
see the world for what it has been, what is now, and what it always will be.
You may
call me, and others like me, cynical.
However, I much prefer the term "realistic."
Next time: A little
nonsense. How 'bout it?













