Idaho's Weekly Journal of Local & National Commentary Week 2815


Home • Up • About us • Contact • Glossary • Links



Back to Quack Off

 Quack Off               



by Free Market Duck

  Obama-Clinton “nightmare ticket” promises to drag U.S. down the road to serfdom via Marxist socialism
(June 4, 2008)

 How ironic.  The first black U.S. presidential candidate, Barack Obama, advocates Marxist socialism, a state collectivist philosophy whose core moral philosophy of anti-individual rights and anti-free markets is the very same philosophy under which Africans were forced into slavery in colonial America.  It was not under free market capitalism that slaves were brought to America; it was under state and church collectivism by the governments of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and other countries (ruled by the concept of the Divine Right of Kings) that slavery was implemented.  If Barack Obama is looking for a socio-political-economic “Change” of ideology in America, he is barking up the wrong tree vis a vis Marxist socialism.  He would do well to re-read the ideas of free minds and free markets as the fundamental premises underlying the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.  The extent to which the U.S. has already implemented socialism is the extent to which we have problems.  Socialism is not what we need; socialism is what we need to get rid of.

 The second irony in today’s political drama is that Hillary Clinton, the first woman U.S. presidential candidate, also suffers from the same affliction as Barack Obama.  She, too advocates Marxist socialism, the same state collectivist philosophy whose core moral philosophy of anti-individual rights and anti-free markets is the very same philosophy under which women have been held down as 2nd class citizens for thousands of years, and still are.

 Boise, ID – How is it that two college-educated lawyers running for president of the United States, both of whom represent ethnic and gender icons of previous discrimination in America, are running on the same moral philosophical principles as Germany’s Adolf Hitler (National Socialism), Italy’s Benito Mussolini (Fascism), Russia’s Joseph Stalin (Communism), and China’s Mao Tse-Tung (Communism) – all of which are variations on the theme of altruistic state collectivism (Big Brother Dictatorships) -- instead of individual rights and freedoms?

   The simple answer is that Obama and Hillary have mistakenly adopted the definition of “individual rights” as the oxymoron “rights to receive from others” (which means all parties have reciprocal rip off rights, which means nobody has any rights at all) instead of the correct definition of individual rights, which is “rights to voluntarily give or exchange” (which means everybody has equal rights).

   This one small conceptual difference, this one minor philosophical detail – the “right to freely give” vs. the “right to receive” -- is what separates true individual rights advocates from state dictators.  And this is precisely what Obama and Hillary don’t understand.

   In Marxist socialism, the collectivist philosophy of “rights to receive” never answers the question “rights to receive FROM WHOM" because it would reveal the denigration of somebody else’s rights.  Karl Marx expressed it as, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  In free market philosophy, “rights to freely give or exchange” is expressed as, “inherent individual rights of mutual non-infringement.”

   Note that the Marxian socialist concept of “rights to receive” is enforced by The State Police through a governmental policy of Reciprocal Rip Off edicts or direct confiscation and redistribution by the State.  In free market capitalism, individual “rights” occur as individuals exchange freely in an open market, which is governed by an objective judicial and police system that prohibits infringements upon individual rights – e.g. enforced by the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights -- instead of granting “rights to receive,” which means “special legislation,” which today in America means “earmarks” and/or deficit financing (given a Federal central bank with unlimited ability to print paper money and today's corrupt U.S. Congress).

   This seemingly minor difference – “rights to receive” vs. “rights to give” -- is the turning point on which swivels life and death, social-political-economic, for billions of Earth humans today, as it always has throughout history, and will continue to do far into the future of our children and grandchildren if we don’t get back to the proper definition of individual rights and freedoms.  To not understand this important philosophical difference in the definition of individual "rights" is to not understand why supposedly intelligent individuals running for the presidency of the United States, and who represent icons of past ethnic and gender discrimination, can come to the wrong conclusion regarding which socio-political-economic system will best solve our current problems:  Marxist socialism or free market capitalism.

   Thus, Obama and Hillary are unwittingly advocating policies of economic suicide, perhaps without knowing it, but at least without correct logic of Cause and Effect, especially with regard to basic economics.

   In short, there is no such concept as Obama's and Clinton's "rights to receive."  It is simply a non sequitur at best, an oxymoron at worst.  It is an illogical concept that can never be implemented.

   The important thing to note is that Obama’s and Clinton’s iconic representation can be reduced to a more basic principle of equality than simply ethnicity or gender:  it’s called individual rights since the individual is the smallest minority possible.  All political candidates should be proposing a philosophy of inherent individual rights defined as “rights to freely give or exchange,” not the oxymoronic concept of Karl Marx’s “rights to receive” from everybody else, usually through that cleverly camouflaged entity called “The State.”

   Entire nation states have crumbled under the same Marxist philosophy espoused by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  So, be careful what you wish for, people.  The “Change” you demand may be the “Change” you’ll get. – FM Duck

        back to top...


               Home • Up • About us • Contact • Glossary • Links   all contents copyrighted ©1994-2015   Free Market Duck tm   all rights reserved