I have several amusing posts about the left’s fixation on redistributionism, including this Halloween classic, this Elizabeth Warren takedown, this mockery of the Occupy Wall Street nitwits, and this caricature of Obama’s class warfare.
In this grand tradition, here’s a funny poster sent to me by a reader.
This is an appropriate point for the disclaimer that Obama is not a socialist, which technically requires government ownership of the means of production. As I’ve explained before, it’s much more accurate to say he’s a statist, a corporatist, or a redistributionist.
And since we’re looking at definitions and this post features young children, I’m reminded of the great description of libertarianism put forth by my Cato colleague David Boaz.
You could say that you learn the essence of libertarianism — which is also the essence of civilization – in kindergarten: don’t hit other people, don’t take their stuff, keep your promises.
That definition isn’t amusing, like what’s portrayed in this satirical video or shown in this mocking poster featuring the 24 types of libertarians, but it has the advantage of being simple and accurate.
Wow, you guys never cease no amaze me(and not in a good way)//Greetings’ from Sweden; the freest, most prosperous, top 5 of highest taxation country in the world, and wouldn’t want to be anywhere else.
[...] http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/socialism-for-kids-the-obama-version/ Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookEmailPrintDiggStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Three Amigos U.S., Canada And Mexico Fall Into Rift Amid Obama’s Neglect, Protectionism – Investors.com [...]
“Obama is not a socialist, which technically requires government ownership of the means of production.”
In his book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism” Kevin Williamson makes what I think is a good point that this definition is very dated and doesn’t really reflect current socialist strategy. He elaborates in an NRO article (I believe that is a quote from his book).that, “A more complete definition of socialism incorporates two criteria: The first is that socialism entails the public provision of non-public goods. The second is the use of central planning to implement that policy.”
Now *that* definition would make Obama a socialist. I like that.
And for Mkwen, Williamson also demolishes the, oh ya what about Sweden, comeback Socialists love to give when asked for an actual example of long term Socialist sucess. Personaly I can never get past that 100 million people Socialist ideology murded in the 20th century to really care for examples.
America’s margin of competitive advantage has worn very thin and it’s growth trendline is now headed towards a more Swedish like subpar two percent, in a world that is riding a four to five percent growth trendline. The future and the fix: get the pitchforks out and flatten some more the effort-reward curves. The writing is on the wall.
The three billion newly and only partially still liberated, once sleeping under mandatory collectivism souls of the emerging world, have neither the time nor the desire to wait and see how the priviledged western world’s experiment with socialism ends. They will take no prisoners. Americans will follow the same path as European lemmings. Obama represents just that, the europeanization of America. The remission to a model that is fast coming
to the end of its life.
The writing is on the wall.
“This is an appropriate point for the disclaimer that Obama is not a socialist, which technically requires government ownership of the means of production. As I’ve explained before, it’s much more accurate to say he’s a statist, a corporatist, or a redistributionist.”
or a FASCIST!!
Meanwhile I’m going to try to get my head around a worldview that sees Socialism (“top 5 of highest taxation country in the world”) with its complete control of you, your property and your welfare as compatible with being free (“Greetings’ from Sweden; the freest …”).
Yes, you guys never cease to amaze me. The only thing I can think of is that it’s like bringing up the heat on a frog. If you’ve never known anything else, no matter how bad it gets you conclude this is what freedom looks like.
[...] Mitchell is, of course, correct when he says: This is an appropriate point for the disclaimer that Obama is not a socialist, which technically [...]
OK, so I can’t quit scratching this thing. John Podhoretz has an interesting column today about this topic where he observes, “Obama hasn’t nationalized the auto industry or the health-care industry, nor did he assume control of the economy via the stimulus. What he has sought to do is enmesh government, the economy and the citizenry in a new way.”
That is The New Socialism that Williamson speaks of that is such an insidious threat to us. The old socialism will certainly come on its heals.
[...] Mitchell is, of course, correct when he says: This is an appropriate point for the disclaimer that Obama is not a socialist, which technically [...]
[...] Sort of reminds me of this Socialism-for-Kids poster. [...]
[...] of libertarianism that we hopefully learn in kindergarten (to see the rest of the rules, see the David Boaz quote in this post about Obama’s socialism-for-kids proposal). Rate this:Share [...]
[...] of libertarianism that we hopefully learn in kindergarten (to see the rest of the rules, see the David Boaz quote in this post about Obama’s socialism-for-kids proposal). Share this:TumblrTwitterEmailPrintFacebookLike [...]
[...] P.S. Here’s the Obama version of Socialism for Kids. [...]
[…] of libertarianism that we hopefully learn in kindergarten (to see the rest of the rules, see the David Boaz quote in this post about Obama’s socialism-for-kids […]