Tuesday, December 25, 2012

The Dark Knight and The True Colors of Socialism

It is not often that we are reminded of the evils of Socialism. This is because the media often ignores those countries around the world that still practice such government. It has also been a long time since super power countries of the world were socialistic. Because of this we see many individuals still pursuing the goal of socialism and if not that far many individuals calling for government to be more strict on individual liberties. I think it was due time that we be given a glimpse of the true colors of what socialism brings and the newest installment of The Dark Knight has done exactly that.

Aside from Bane's purely evil plot of the destruction of Gotham he has done exactly what is necessary to install a socialistic State.

It is not even necessary to start with bringing down a democratic State like Bane does when he takes over the city.

Socialism aims at destroying the class hierarchy that is "so ever apparent" in a capitalist society. But a very distinctive attribute of socialism is missed by those who wish to destroy class hierarchy. It's the very attribute that in order to destroy the class hierarchy of the bourgeois and the proletariat you MUST install a new hierarchy. The new hierarchy that has to be implemented is that of the new State and the rest of the people.

The bourgeois and the proletariat of the capitalist society are replaced with the bourgeois and the proletariat of the socialist society. The new bourgeois are those that are part of the State and enforce the rules on everyone else. They are better off than the bourgeois of the capitalist society because they are in control of the resources not by market forces but by the forces of a gun. The new proletariat are those that must live under the threat of a gun. They are worse off than the proletariat of the capitalist society because instead of being to better themselves through market forces they must stay exactly where they are at the point of a gun.

Bane insures that this happens by taking over Gotham and setting up martial law. Live as free people he says as long as you follow his rules, if you don't you are killed. Bane's men are the bourgeois who can live parasitically off the proletariat they now control. The proletariat that are in celebration of living in the wealth of others could only do so for a short period of time because after they have used up the resources of others they will be as poor as those they have thrown into the streets. Bane uses guns and force to set up the socialist State which must be done to give rise to such a State. Without the use of guns a socialist state could never exist because they have to be used to stop man from attempting to better himself as he has always done with the use of his productive abilities.

So you see socialism doesn't bring about the destruction of class hierarchy it only replaces that hierarchy with a more dangerous form of hierarchy.

But rejoice not those who are believers in the democratic State because this very same hierarchy is existent still. Those who are connected to the State and those who are not. Those who reap the benefits through the use of force from those who cannot and choose not to use force. It seems to me that the choice is obvious but when will others see this choice?

When they open their eyes.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Peaceful Parenting, Peaceful World

When it comes to most libertarians it is easy to acknowledge that we, in general, dislike those who believe they have some kind of authority over us. We generally don't want other people telling us what to do and how to live our lives. We often say that we just want to be left alone so that we as individuals can best choose our path, regardless if it is a good path or not.

Most people would agree with this, libertarian or not, but the subject of individuality and no authority often becomes mute when the issue is raising children. Most of my friends are completely shocked when I mention that I have zero intentions of spanking my children as discipline. They usually say that this type of discipline is effective and necessary. It might very well be effective but is it necessary for raising well behaved children? I believe the answer is no.

Now I'll be the first to admit that my experience is very limited in this regard since I have no children of my own. I also have trouble following my own rules at times. I don't think this detracts from the message though.

As rampant is the problem of children who don't listen, constantly misbehave, and even hit others it is usually said it's the lack of a good spanking these days. Back in the day when you got out of hand it wasn't taboo to get a good whack to be set straight. But is this the only way to get children to be good?

Even if it was is it justified in a libertarian mindset? Again I think the answer is no.

What exactly are you doing when you decide to discipline your children in such ways? In my mind you're doing exactly the opposite of what your true beliefs are. Even those who are not libertarians it is acknowledged that initiating violence is wrong and a peaceful world is usually wanted.

How can you possibly try to teach your children that violence is bad with the very use of violence? How can you teach your children that they are individuals and no person has a higher power of them other than themselves when you use power over them?

People wonder why the use of violence is so prevalent in our society. As children we are raised knowing violence can stop bad behavior. We know that someone can claim higher power than ourselves over us. So it follows that later in life the use of violence is not that big of a deal.

Raise your children so that they know initiating violence is always the wrong choice. (Self-defense is not initiating violence it is instead responding to the initiation of violence.) We can't possibly have a world with peace without teaching that peace is the answer.

How do you go about disciplining bad behavior then? Children do not act out because we want to discipline them, it seems that in their learning environment they are merely trying to find out what they can do. This is definitely something I do not have an answer to since I don't have children of my own. I found this short post to be something I'd like to follow in the future.

I'd like to add something I've thought about and something I might try as well in the future. It seems as us capitalists we realize that certain actions lead to reward and others to failures, and some actions have a risk that lead to an uncertain future. This is something I'd like to teach my children. Learning from an early age that doing good isn't good for me as a parent but good for the child. It seems to me that it would follow later in life with grades and the like that they can find out that good grades and such are good for them, not necessarily just because I want to see good grades as a parent, but because they're conscious choices that lead to better outcomes.

Why not allow for a profit loss incentive for children? It would help them understand that their choices have consequences, some good some bad. I don't connect this with bribing your children for goodies though.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that will be for me to find out and adapt my situation for the better of my future children.

We can't have peace when we teach violence and we won't have violence when we teach peace.