Posts Tagged ‘jon fournier’

Shining some light on the true nature of Socialism

Posted: February 20, 2020 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

The fact that Bernie Sanders, the self avowed socialist, appears to be currently the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination is proof our educational system has failed to properly educate far too many about the true nature of Socialism.  It is up to us on the political right to set the record straight on social media. To make this easier I’ve assembled a selection of quotes from a couple of articles.

The first collection of quotes are from this American Thinker article Bernie Bros and the Catastrophe of Socialism. 

This first quote is not to flattering, yet it is accurate.

The love affair of young Americans with Bernie Sanders is the result of their disturbingly disastrous belief that they are entitled to what other people worked for. Pied Piper Bernie seduces young followers with his seductive lie: “You deserve and I will give you everything for free.” Ponder that, folks. In Bernie’s America, no one has to work for anything.

This next quote perfectly sums up one aspect of socialism the youth of this country fail to appreciate, it primarily benefits the least productive workers at the expense of the most productive.

You and Larry have summer jobs as waiters. You work your butt off, remembering patrons’ food orders correctly and swiftly filling their empty glasses; doing everything in your power to make their dining experience enjoyable. For your excellence, patrons tip you generously.

But rather than your well-deserved hard-earned money going into your pocket, it goes into a tip jar to be distributed equally between you and Larry. Meanwhile, Larry routinely arrives late, reeks of alcohol, takes long smoke breaks, routinely gets food orders wrong and does not give a rat’s derriere about the patrons. Management (government) forces you to share the fruits of your labor with lazy Larry. That is the major flaw of socialism.

Most students are not informed that socialism was attempted in several of the earliest colonies of this nation, and it failed each time.  One attempt was made in Plymouth Plantation.

William Bradford was the first governor of the Pilgrims’ Plymouth Colony. Bradford tried socialism, which meant that everything belonged to the community and everyone supposedly did their fair share of the work. Because of lazy Larrys, it failed. Therefore, Bradford wisely decided to give everyone their own land, which was extremely successful. Due to an abundance, families began trading goods and services. Capitalism.

I don’t think too many millennials would be thrilled to learn that socialism would put an end to innovation in the United States.

Duped Bernie Bros are thrilled over his promise to confiscate all earnings over a million dollars. Cell phones, the internet, medical breakthroughs, and other blessings are the result of individuals being allowed to be the best they can be; striving to reap great rewards for themselves and their families. Folks, there is nothing evil about that. If the government takes everything over a million dollars, why would anyone take risks or pursue new breakthroughs?

This next article, from the Mises institute, is rather technical, however, it contains a treasure trove of information Socialism: A Brief Taxonomy

As you can see from this quote, the most often cited definition of Socialism is incomplete:

The contemporary meaning of socialism often runs along the lines that it is a politico-economic theory in which the means of production, wealth distribution, and exchange are supposed to be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. This characterization of socialism emphasizes its important economic features; however, it cannot be considered a comprehensive definition. The wording implies a narrow understanding of socialism from the point of view of materialist and positivist currents of socialism but does not fully encompass the features exhibited in antimaterialist, anti-Cartesian, and Kantian members of the socialist family.

Here is a much more complete definition:

Socialism is a set of artificial socioeconomic systems that are characterized by varying degrees of collectivization of property, or consciousness, or the redistribution of wealth… socialization of property, collectivization of consciousness, and wealth redistribution are necessary and sufficient causative factors that taken separately or in combination unambiguously define an ideology as socialistic and designate preferred paths to socialism

The Mises article contains definitions of many different types of Socialism that have cropped up over the centuries, the one for Democratic Socialism is the most crucial to understand considering the popularity of Bernie Sanders.

Democratic Socialism in the USA, is a significant revision to Marxism, which practically does not leave even the foundation of genuine Marxist principles. Reformism has been a mainstream form of socialist ideology and practice since the end of the nineteenth century. Redistribution of wealth and partial socialization of consciousness are the main paths being utilized by the doctrine. Socialism is supposed to be gradually built within a capitalistic society by methodically changing the socioeconomic laws of the land using parliamentary procedures. Great importance is also attached to the mental transformation of members of the society through the indoctrination of the population in educational institutions and the propaganda of the socialistic ideals in the mass media, social networks, and materials of pop culture.

Equity – The latest hot concept in progressive indoctrination

Posted: February 13, 2020 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Progressive indoctrination in the United States was once confined primarily to colleges and universities.  It has now infected grade schools and high schools across this nation.  The purpose of this indoctrination is to convert this nation from a liberty based free market nation into a Marxist nation.   This is chronicled in the Townhall article; Marxism Sugarcoated And Forcefed To Schoolchildren As ‘Equity’

American elementary schools have spent the past decade rapidly introducing leftist and socialist curricula into classrooms of little children. This type of leftist propagandization was previously reserved for older children in colleges and high schools. But the Obama era, followed by the shock of Trump’s election, catalyzed a more emboldened approach for leftist pedagogy. 

The progressive indoctrination has been spread through our schools by using many different warm and fuzzy sounding phrases and buzzwords.  This is a subject I’ve studied in great detail online and have covered it on several occasions on this website.  The concept of equity versus equality is a new one to me even though I’ve encountered many examples over the years.   Here is how it is defined by the author of the Townhall article:

Enter the new era of socialist propagandization of children: “equity.” Equity is taught as a type of superior fairness. It replaces the now archaic concept of equality. Equality is explained to our children as “generic” and “equal,” apparently bad things, while equity is pedestaled as “fair. ” You see, equality means that everyone has the same, equal opportunities, but this leads to unequal results. Equity, on the other hand, ensures identical results and thus leads to “fair” outcomes. The idea that America should offer equality of opportunity, not equality of result, is now dead, and has been replaced with the reverse standard – that America should offer equality of result. 

This nation was founded on the concept of each and every individual being created equal, we are all familiar with that most important line from the Declaration of Independence.  Hopefully it is still being taught in schools.  With the sad state of public school education you just don’t know.

The founders of this nation all knew that because every individual is truly unique, everyone with different talents, intellect, skills, and ambitions, every individual will achieve different levels of prosperity in a truly free society, with a free market economy.   They firmly believed that even though some individuals would achieve a higher standard of living than others, there was no better system.  Their belief in the rightness of that system is based on the fact that government force and coercion would be needed to guarantee equal outcomes for every individual.   They knew that money or other property would have to be forcibly taken from individuals with more wealth and redistributed to those who have less.  This is true in the United States thanks to the progressive income tax and redistributive welfare programs. If you don’t think force and coercion are involved here in this country try not paying your taxes. 

Like all indoctrination, clever and subtle messages are the most effective way to implement it such as this:

To teach the concept, children are shown an example of three kids trying to look over a fence: a short, medium, and tall child. In the first slide, each of them is given an equally-sized box to stand on. This results in the shortest kid not boosted up enough to be able to see over the fence, while the tallest kid is shown to be getting a boost that he doesn’t really need. Next, a second slide is shown. The tallest boy’s box is given to the shortest kid, with the shortest kid now standing on two boxes. The middle child keeps one, and the tallest gets none. The result is that everyone can now see over the fence, equally. The conclusion is taught as: “Fair isn’t everybody getting the same thing … fair is everybody getting what they need in order to be successful.” 

The first time I encountered this example on social media I noticed several glaring flaws which I know are most likely not dealt with in the classroom. 

First, where do the boxes come from?  Socialists would believe that everyone has a right to a box and government must provide it which means the boxes were taken by force and redistributed.  If individuals who do not pay to view the game are given boxes by the government to see the game who would pay to enter the stadium and watch?  Is that fair to the owners of the team and the stadium?  Wouldn’t it be best if the kids who wanted to see the game earned the money necessary to buy a ticket?

The author of the article shared this solution to the progressive indoctrination crises, one I very much agree with:

The only way to stop this socialist infestation of our grade schools is to stand up for your children, to vociferously object to every lesson plan that shows socialism dressed in sheep’s clothing. Keep an eye on your children’s homework and talk to them every day. Set aside Family Learning Time to teach your kids the truth about “equity” and what happens in the real world when equal results are forced. Remember, it is impossible to make everyone equally rich; it is only possible to make everyone equally poor.

The Massachusetts Senate Wants to Turn this State into California

Posted: February 6, 2020 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

The Massachusetts Senate announced on January 23rd that they very much want to turn ths state into California.  The announced this by declaring that they want to enact a California style Climate Cap and Trade package.  Nothing would speed this sate into turning into a hell hole like California faster than a Cap and Trade System.

I first heard about this disastrous effort when I say this article online: Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance article California Style Regulations in Massachusetts!

On January 23rd 2020, the Massachusetts Senate came out with a Climate Change package that would drastically increase regulations on how you live your daily life. The senate is seeking to tax you on necessities such as driving your car and heating your home, and simply raise prices on EVERYTHING! This package includes three separate bills and is going to be taken up by the Senate on THURSDAY:

I don’t think the people of Massachusetts are expecting to see a drastic price increase in all aspects of their lives, which is what will happen if the climate change legislation is enacted.  The politicians always seem to gloss over the price increase aspect when claiming that they are saving the planet.

Here are the details if the plan:

(S 2477) is a straight Carbon Tax that will increase the cost of living exponentially. It establishes net-neutral greenhouse gas emissions standards by 2050. It accomplishes this by adopting sector-based statewide greenhouse gas emissions sub-limits including, but not limited to, electric power, transportation, commercial and industrial heating and cooling, residential heating and cooling, industrial processes, solid waste, agriculture and natural gas distribution and service. This simply means you will pay more for electricity, gas, heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, trash disposal, food, and any other goods and services that uses any of these things to be made for you or to get to you.

It sounds ridiculously expensive doesn’t it?  How will senior citizens and low income individuals afford necessities?  How will businesses survive?

There is more to the proposed legislation.

(S 2478) Substantially expands the Massachusetts Appliance Efficiency Standards Act to include higher standards for a wider variety of consumer and commercial products. What will it do?
-It requires cooking appliances, air ventilation systems, and lamps to meet federal Energy Star guidelines
-It adopts California energy regulations for computers and computer monitors
-It establishes specific flow volumes required for plumbing fixtures, including shower heads, faucets, toilets, and urinals
-It sets an effective date of January 1, 2022, after which products covered in this act must meet their new regulations in order to be sold or installed in Massachusetts
-Maintains existing federal water and energy efficiency requirements in Massachusetts in the event they are withdrawn or repealed. 

Are you ready for air conditioners that don’t actually cool rooms or dishwashers that need to run twice as long.  All appliances will function poorer and be way more expensive.  That is what happens when energy standards are applied by government. 

I also found this article Carbon pricing is a cornerstone of Senate climate package from the Hannover Manner Local News.

The Massachusetts Senate plans to take up a far-reaching package of climate bills whose major components include an electric MBTA bus fleet by 2040, carbon-pricing mechanisms for transportation, homes and commercial buildings, and a series of five-year greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements that ramp up to net-zero emissions in 2050.

The three bills, teed up for debate on Jan. 30, with amendments due by Monday, amount to what Senate President Karen Spilka called a “comprehensive plan for the state” to respond to an international issue – global climate change.

“This is a race against time,” Spilka told reporters. “Climate change is changing not only Massachusetts and the United States, it is changing the face of our planet, and our planet’s survival is at stake.”

As you can see, saving the planet from the mythical climate change monster is the justification for this disaster.

The good news so far is the House of Representatives is not ready to enact this legislation yet.

“For several years the bill struggled,” Barrett said. “We did not find traction in the House in particular. I want to be respectful of the legislative branches and respectful of the governor. It seemed to me after two or three years that we weren’t moving quickly enough. I decided I wanted to put a price on carbon by any path we could lay our hands on, so I backed away from my preferred method.”

The Bad news is that our Governor embraces the idea.

This year’s bill allows the governor to choose among a revenue-neutral fee, a revenue-positive tax, or a cap and trade system like the Transportation Climate Initiative Gov. Charlie Baker is pursuing with other states. It would require a carbon-pricing mechanism to be in effect for the transportation sector by Jan. 1, 2022, for commercial, industrial and institutional buildings by Jan. 1, 2025, and residential buildings by Jan. 1, 2030.

Our State elected officials are trying to hammer this mess into actual legislation that will pass both houses and be signed by the Governor Baker.

Backing from the governor and the leaders of the two legislative houses creates likelihood that some version of a net-zero emissions policy becomes law this session. Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides said she plans to issue a letter of determination in the coming weeks to establish a policy of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

We must call our elected officials and tell them no.  We must also work hard to get more true republicans elected into State Office to keep Massachusetts from being turned into California.

Licensing Laws do far more harm than good

Posted: January 30, 2020 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Licensing laws, and similar regulations, are a product of the progressive era which began around 1913.  These laws are meant to protect society as a whole, and individuals in particular.  A careful study of these laws will demonstrate that they have produced far more negative effects than positive effects.   This is explained in great detail in the Mises Institute article The Deception behind Government Licensing Laws

The primary justification for these licensing laws and regulations is:

One of the favorite arguments for licensing laws and other types of quality standards is that governments must “protect” consumers by insuring that workers and businesses sell goods and services of the highest quality.

There is one great flaw in that argument:

The answer, of course, is that “quality” is a highly elastic and relative term and is decided by the consumers in their free actions in the marketplace. The consumers decide according to their own tastes and interests, and particularly according to the price they wish to pay for the service.

Individuals are far better than a government bureaucracy, especially a gargantuan one at the federal level, at determining what constitutes a quality product.  Word of mouth and other forms of reviews by actual customers is a far better way of regulating the quality of products.  When potential customers hear that a product is no good or harmful then they won’t buy it resulting in the company losing money and possibly going out of business.

Licensing laws most always limit competition which is why they are championed by established large businesses.  That is why they spend so much money lobbying for them.

How much these requirements are designed to “protect” the health of the public, and how much to restrict competition, may be gauged from the fact that giving medical advice free without a license is rarely a legal offense. Only the sale of medical advice requires a license. Since someone may be injured as much, if not more, by free medical advice than by purchased advice, the major purpose of the regulation is clearly to restrict competition rather than to safeguard the public

Regulations meant to ensure quality products quite often stifle innovation.

Other quality standards in production have an even more injurious effect. They impose governmental definitions of products and require businesses to hew to the specifications laid down by these definitions. Thus, the government defines “bread” as being of a certain composition. This is supposed to be a safeguard against “adulteration,” but in fact it prohibits improvement. If the government defines a product in a certain way, it prohibits change.

Regulations imposed by government bureaucracies stifle private sector innovation for the following reason:

A change, to be accepted by consumers, has to be an improvement, either absolutely or in the form of a lower price. Yet it may take a long time, if not forever, to persuade the government bureaucracy to change the requirements. In the meantime, competition is injured, and technological improvements are blocked.

Licensing laws make it difficult for individuals to find jobs in a particular field. Take hair dressers for instance. It takes a lot of schooling to become a hair dresser, approximately 1500 hours.. Is it all necessary? The same holds true for many fields.

Here is the proper free market solution to low quality or harmful products and services:

In the free economy, there would be ample means to obtain redress for direct injuries or fraudulent “adulteration.” No system of government “standards” or army of administrative inspectors is necessary. If a man is sold adulterated food, then clearly the seller has committed fraud, violating his contract to sell the food. Thus, if A sells B breakfast food, and it turns out to be straw, A has committed an illegal act of fraud by telling B he is selling him food while actually selling straw. This is punishable in the courts under “libertarian law,” i.e., the legal code of the free society that would prohibit all invasions of persons and property.

Licensing laws and government regulations have affected me personally in a very negative way.  For the past several years I have been attempting to raise money to open a nano brewery.  I have created and perfected a large number of recipes that rival the best craft breweries.  Because of government interference the start up costs for this type of brewery is many times higher than what they should be.  The approval process for opening a brewery is about one year.  The beginning step is establishing a location before you begin the licensing procedure.   That means you have to rent or buy a location, before you begin the paperwork.  That is a whole year you have to pay rent when you are not taking in any money, and there is a good chance you could get turned down at the end.  Before federal government regulation put a stop to this, many started a brewery in their kitchen, then opened an actual brewery after they sold enough beer to afford this.  Because of the nature of beer it is a product that it is virtually impossible to make someone sick if you brew bad quality beer.  It is very expensive to outfit a startup brewery to meet federal standards, standards imposed by bureaucrats rather than brewers, There was no need for this change except to limit competition.

Older Entries
Newer Entries