On my last birthda, my lovely bride gave me the collection of G.K. Chesterton essays published under the title, "The Well and the Shallows." It was published in 1935.
I pulled it from the shelf this morning to provide something to occupy my mind while my mouth and stomach were occupied with a delicious sausage and cheese omlette.
Hiis critique of the Socialists of his era in England rings just as true today, confironted as we still are with all manner of Socialists, Communists, Prohibitionists, and other sentimental tyrants:
"the respectable sort of Socialist who will not call himself a Communist. The study of 'parasitic' Parliamentary Labour is masterly, and my own sympathies would be all with a man like Mr. Maxton as compared with a man like Mr. Thomas. But the sequel is still puzzling; for in the last short note there is no practical programme except a Minimum Wage for all, which is said to obviate the need of expropriation of land and property. I suppose this means that employers would be taxed till they were too poor to employ; and then the State would employ. But what State--and, my God, what statesmen! Why, presumably (if nothing is needed but a new wage raised by a new tax) just the jolly statesmen the world produces at present, the parasitic Parliamentarians turned into omnipotent bureaucrats. I should refuse it, of course; first, because it preserves the wage-system; second because the worst wage-system is one with only one employer, who may be an omnipresent enemy; and third because, in the purely practical statement, there is no provision for any change in the type of tyrant."
Indeed: "Tax employers till they are too poor to employ." Lst the state be the sole employer/provider. Sound familiar?
But, "what State -- and my God, what statesmen!"
What statesmen indeed?
Our country is about evenly divided.. Nearly exactly 1/2 of the country believes the previous president was a war criminal who favored plutocrats and brought the country to economic ruin and that everyone with conservative political beliefs is evil, callous, stupid, crazy etc. (truth be told, there is a measurable percentage of those evik, callous, stupid, crazy conservatives who also think the previous president wrecklessly got the country involved in a foolish war, favored certain plutocrats and participated in the economic ruin of the country).
The other half of the country is convinced on the evidence that the current president is unintelligent, uncurious and meant it when he said he wanted to 'fundamentally transform' our nation. They are certain that he does not hold traditional American values. They concieve that he does not respect or feel bound by the Constitution and that he intends to continue to transform the country into a Socialist one in which everyone is subservient and beholden to the central government. He believes that experts in Washington know better than free people in their communities and that planners can make everyones' life better through their benevolent wisdom, if they are given enough power.
Meanwhile, no more than 20% of the country approves of the work being done by Congress.
So, if everyone has despised at least one of the last 2 presidents, no one trusts Congress and federal bureaucrats rate lower than used car salesmen on the scale of positive regard, WHY DO WE LET THEM SPEND ALL OF OUR MONEY AND DICTATE EVERY MINUTIA OF OUR LIVES?
I'd really like to know. We see the ill done by parasitic parliamentarians turned to omnipotent bureaucrats who are fast becoming an omnipresent enemy.
Chesterton's critique of Socialist schemes rings truer today than it did 77 years ago.
I pulled it from the shelf this morning to provide something to occupy my mind while my mouth and stomach were occupied with a delicious sausage and cheese omlette.
Hiis critique of the Socialists of his era in England rings just as true today, confironted as we still are with all manner of Socialists, Communists, Prohibitionists, and other sentimental tyrants:
"the respectable sort of Socialist who will not call himself a Communist. The study of 'parasitic' Parliamentary Labour is masterly, and my own sympathies would be all with a man like Mr. Maxton as compared with a man like Mr. Thomas. But the sequel is still puzzling; for in the last short note there is no practical programme except a Minimum Wage for all, which is said to obviate the need of expropriation of land and property. I suppose this means that employers would be taxed till they were too poor to employ; and then the State would employ. But what State--and, my God, what statesmen! Why, presumably (if nothing is needed but a new wage raised by a new tax) just the jolly statesmen the world produces at present, the parasitic Parliamentarians turned into omnipotent bureaucrats. I should refuse it, of course; first, because it preserves the wage-system; second because the worst wage-system is one with only one employer, who may be an omnipresent enemy; and third because, in the purely practical statement, there is no provision for any change in the type of tyrant."
Indeed: "Tax employers till they are too poor to employ." Lst the state be the sole employer/provider. Sound familiar?
But, "what State -- and my God, what statesmen!"
What statesmen indeed?
Our country is about evenly divided.. Nearly exactly 1/2 of the country believes the previous president was a war criminal who favored plutocrats and brought the country to economic ruin and that everyone with conservative political beliefs is evil, callous, stupid, crazy etc. (truth be told, there is a measurable percentage of those evik, callous, stupid, crazy conservatives who also think the previous president wrecklessly got the country involved in a foolish war, favored certain plutocrats and participated in the economic ruin of the country).
The other half of the country is convinced on the evidence that the current president is unintelligent, uncurious and meant it when he said he wanted to 'fundamentally transform' our nation. They are certain that he does not hold traditional American values. They concieve that he does not respect or feel bound by the Constitution and that he intends to continue to transform the country into a Socialist one in which everyone is subservient and beholden to the central government. He believes that experts in Washington know better than free people in their communities and that planners can make everyones' life better through their benevolent wisdom, if they are given enough power.
Meanwhile, no more than 20% of the country approves of the work being done by Congress.
So, if everyone has despised at least one of the last 2 presidents, no one trusts Congress and federal bureaucrats rate lower than used car salesmen on the scale of positive regard, WHY DO WE LET THEM SPEND ALL OF OUR MONEY AND DICTATE EVERY MINUTIA OF OUR LIVES?
I'd really like to know. We see the ill done by parasitic parliamentarians turned to omnipotent bureaucrats who are fast becoming an omnipresent enemy.
Chesterton's critique of Socialist schemes rings truer today than it did 77 years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment