Sunday, August 13, 2006

Socialism Kills

I have been commenting here and there on Israeli blogs about the nature of Israeli politics. I have lost faith in Olmert. Compare my attitude here: Tactics, Strategy, Grand Strategy with the attitude I express below.

How in the heck did you folks manage to elect such a galoot?

Obviously you are getting the government you deserve.

The core problem is that Olmert is a socialist. He hates to see any one hurt. He hates inflicting death on Israeli mothers. He refuses to face the fact that the alternative is inflicting death on the Israeli nation.

You guys really need to can that socialism crap. It breeds unhealthy attitudes.

Capitalists at least understand investment, profit, loss. Unless you are a thief profit always has a certain cost. If you want the profit you must pay the price.

What am I saying? That even for the secular there are belief patterns and experiences that would turn out better leaders than Olmert.

Seriously. Socialism breeds weak nations.

Had enough yet?

Olmert was driven to minimize his losses not maximize his profits.

His bleeding heart has bled the nation for no profit.

Really he is exactly what you would expect from socialists.

3 comments:

pessimist said...

Trying to minimize your casualties is not really a weakness.
The diference between war nowadays and war in the 40's, is that you cannot bomb enemies cities anymore.
Terrorist realized this fact and and are exploring it to their advantage.
So the relevant question is why democracies are not capacle of bombing enemies cities anymore ?
My answer to this question is that the atomic bomb invention changed the expected outcome of the war games. You dont bomb your enemy cities indiscriminately and expect the same from your enemy. This should avoid MAD, mutual assured destruction.
But the terrorist enemy can continue to attack western cities. If western cities defend themselves, they lose their distinctive freedom, at leat parcialy.
Usually, free societies could defend themselves economically, because their are usually much richer than terrorist sponsoring societies.
But by an historical accident, Islamic terrorist societies are awashed in oil and wealth.
So free societies (USA) cannot bomb terrorist out of business neither are capable of starving them economically.
If Iran plays well, they will get the capacity of producing atomic bombs, but they wont use them. It will be an insurance , against stronger military retaliation. But they will continue with their terrorist war against free societies, financed by the oil wealth.

Tom Perry said...

Nationalism Kills. National is the problem. Nationalism breeds contempt for people who are other, and it allows monsterous atrocities. Nationalism allows moral equivocation. Nationalism has brought a disasterous comeuppance to the nations who come to believe in it. Nationalism is not love of country; it is blinding and poisonous.

M. Simon said...

pessimist,

Minimizing casualties is a good idea.

It has to be balanced against the rewards.

Take 1936 in Europe. Had France enforced its Treaty with Germany the Austrian Corporal would have been jobless. Cost maybe 10,000 dead.

Unwilling to pay the price they (and the world) got much worse.

Nationalism kills.

What a slogan.

No mention of how to change that or what should replace it.

I suppose anarchy is the answer. Which has worked well every where it has been tried.

Unfortunately you can count the successes of the anarchist model without using any fingers or toes.

Or perhaps the socialist model. The conventional wisdom in May of 1914 was that war was obsolete because Europe was socialist. The refrain was "We are all socialists now". We know how well that worked.