Corporation Socialism

[Belinda]

But Communism is Socialism. And Marxism is death.

Not even a bit. Sorry. That boat won't float, if you know anything at all about Him.

Communism is indeed a species of socialism: socialism is a larger category than communism

But not any better. There isn't a single case of a Socialist state ever working, or of what Marx said coming true. It was hokey from the get-go. But worse than that: it gave birth to what has proved to be the most homicidal set of creeds in human history.

But Jesus of Nazareth was on the side of the poor, the despised, and the rejected...

Absolutely. And that's yet another way He was no Socialist: they sometimes talk that game, but they never deliver it.

But Jesus was totally apolitical. He did not teach revolution, or a dialectical view of conflict or history, or class struggle, or Materialism...and He taught divine justice, not "social justice." No wonder, then, that Marx identified "religion" (he knew only Judaism and Christianity) as the necessary subject of the first critique. He knew, if you didn't, that Socialism and Christianity are opposites. One teaches revolution in this world, and the other teaches moral obedience to the coming Kingdom of God. Marx couldn't live with that. So much the worse for Marx.

Your optimism , Immanuel, concerning enduring effects of the industrial revolution is typical of the Right Wing view of history.

On the contrary: that you are the beneficiary of the IR an obvious fact. It's far more obvious than any debt you think you retain to slavery. Look around you: everything within the world you're living is a product of the IR. What, within your range of view at this moment, was not produced by the division of labour, capital profits, or industrial machinery? You'll have a hard time finding anything.

But you're wrong to assume me an "optimist" about the IR. I think the truth is that we're increasing our power without increasing our wisdom. And that's eventually going to bring the human race to tragedy.

Welfare socialism does "deliver it"! As I said recently look at the British post- war Attlee government.

I have said repeatedly that capitalism must be regulated by legislation for human rights and welfare state.

[Immanuel Can]

Communism is indeed a species of socialism: socialism is a larger category than communism

But not any better. There isn't a single case of a Socialist state ever working, or of what Marx said coming true. It was hokey from the get-go. But worse than that: it gave birth to what has proved to be the most homicidal set of creeds in human history.

But Jesus of Nazareth was on the side of the poor, the despised, and the rejected...

Absolutely. And that's yet another way He was no Socialist: they sometimes talk that game, but they never deliver it.

But Jesus was totally apolitical. He did not teach revolution, or a dialectical view of conflict or history, or class struggle, or Materialism...and He taught divine justice, not "social justice." No wonder, then, that Marx identified "religion" (he knew only Judaism and Christianity) as the necessary subject of the first critique. He knew, if you didn't, that Socialism and Christianity are opposites. One teaches revolution in this world, and the other teaches moral obedience to the coming Kingdom of God. Marx couldn't live with that. So much the worse for Marx.

Your optimism , Immanuel, concerning enduring effects of the industrial revolution is typical of the Right Wing view of history.

On the contrary: that you are the beneficiary of the IR an obvious fact. It's far more obvious than any debt you think you retain to slavery. Look around you: everything within the world you're living is a product of the IR. What, within your range of view at this moment, was not produced by the division of labour, capital profits, or industrial machinery? You'll have a hard time finding anything.

But you're wrong to assume me an "optimist" about the IR. I think the truth is that we're increasing our power without increasing our wisdom. And that's eventually going to bring the human race to tragedy.

Welfare socialism does "deliver it"!

It does not, actually. It is not sustainable economically, and has to take the funds to run its programs from taxation, the funds for which come from business enterprise and free markets. What we have discovered from history is that any attempt to "socialize" the system as a whole has always resulted in economic suicide.

Look at where Cuba or Venezuela are right now. And who suffers most? The poor. And how is China sustaining itself? On what they call "Red Capitalism." Socialism is just a perennial failure. And the people it lets down worst are the most vulnerable. Meanwhile, the Socialist elites seem to live very well...

[promethean75]

"Look at where Cuba or Venezuela are right now."

That's a complex red herring or strawman or something. The U.S. cut boaf of those countries off half a century ago and beat em out of gas and trade and all kinds of shit because they were pseudo-socialist. And any communism 101 class will teach you that communist bastards can't stay afloat in a sea of capitalism.

So, now you're prolly wrong three times instead of two. Once in believing either of those countries were ever marxist, once in believing their disastrous state is the result of marxist doctrine and not economic isolation, and perhaps once more if you think the U.S. hasn't had a hand in making sure both countries are dismal failures unless they become subordinate to the U.S.

[Belinda]

But not any better. There isn't a single case of a Socialist state ever working, or of what Marx said coming true. It was hokey from the get-go. But worse than that: it gave birth to what has proved to be the most homicidal set of creeds in human history.

Absolutely. And that's yet another way He was no Socialist: they sometimes talk that game, but they never deliver it.

But Jesus was totally apolitical. He did not teach revolution, or a dialectical view of conflict or history, or class struggle, or Materialism...and He taught divine justice, not "social justice." No wonder, then, that Marx identified "religion" (he knew only Judaism and Christianity) as the necessary subject of the first critique. He knew, if you didn't, that Socialism and Christianity are opposites. One teaches revolution in this world, and the other teaches moral obedience to the coming Kingdom of God. Marx couldn't live with that. So much the worse for Marx.

On the contrary: that you are the beneficiary of the IR an obvious fact. It's far more obvious than any debt you think you retain to slavery. Look around you: everything within the world you're living is a product of the IR. What, within your range of view at this moment, was not produced by the division of labour, capital profits, or industrial machinery? You'll have a hard time finding anything.

But you're wrong to assume me an "optimist" about the IR. I think the truth is that we're increasing our power without increasing our wisdom. And that's eventually going to bring the human race to tragedy.

Welfare socialism does "deliver it"!

It does not, actually. It is not sustainable economically, and has to take the funds to run its programs from taxation, the funds for which come from business enterprise and free markets. What we have discovered from history is that any attempt to "socialize" the system as a whole has always resulted in economic suicide.

Look at where Cuba or Venezuela are right now. And who suffers most? The poor. And how is China sustaining itself? On what they call "Red Capitalism." Socialism is just a perennial failure. And the people it lets down worst are the most vulnerable. Meanwhile, the Socialist elites seem to live very well...

Everywhere and always there's an elite class so we can agree that socialist elite man is no better no worse than the average elite man. Yet still you argue that a rich man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

The Kingdom of Heaven is not to be evaluated in monetary profits but in the raising up of despairing poor people to proper pride and decent food on their tables.

It's absurd of you who knows Scripture so well to leave it to me who doesn't even belong to a church to preach Xian morality .

The Needle's Eye is said to be a nickname for a real historical gate into Jerusalem such a gate that a camel can't squeeze through it.

[Immanuel Can]

Welfare socialism does "deliver it"!

It does not, actually. It is not sustainable economically, and has to take the funds to run its programs from taxation, the funds for which come from business enterprise and free markets. What we have discovered from history is that any attempt to "socialize" the system as a whole has always resulted in economic suicide.

Look at where Cuba or Venezuela are right now. And who suffers most? The poor. And how is China sustaining itself? On what they call "Red Capitalism." Socialism is just a perennial failure. And the people it lets down worst are the most vulnerable. Meanwhile, the Socialist elites seem to live very well...

Everywhere and always there's an elite class so we can agree that socialist elite man is no better no worse than the average elite man. [

If "everywhere there's always an elite class," as you say, then there's no such thing as a Socialist society. There's no "triumph of the proletariat," or Communist utopia, either.

Yet still you argue that a rich man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

You should read what Christ said about that more carefully. You've actually said the opposite of what He said. He said it was easier for "a camel to go through the eye of a needle" than for that to be the case -- not impossible, perhaps, but very, very challenging indeed.

It's absurd of you who knows Scripture so well to leave it to me who doesn't even belong to a church to preach Xian morality .

And yet, you managed to misunderstand it completely, it seems. So maybe I'm not the worst expositor of it in this conversation after all.

[Alexiev]

It does not, actually. It is not sustainable economically, and has to take the funds to run its programs from taxation, the funds for which come from business enterprise and free markets. What we have discovered from history is that any attempt to "socialize" the system as a whole has always resulted in economic suicide.

Look at where Cuba or Venezuela are right now. And who suffers most? The poor. And how is China sustaining itself? On what they call "Red Capitalism." Socialism is just a perennial failure. And the people it lets down worst are the most vulnerable. Meanwhile, the Socialist elites seem to live very well...

Everywhere and always there's an elite class so we can agree that socialist elite man is no better no worse than the average elite man. [

If "everywhere there's always an elite class," as you say, then there's no such thing as a Socialist society. There's no "triumph of the proletariat," or Communist utopia, either.

Yet still you argue that a rich man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

You should read what Christ said about that more carefully. You've actually said the opposite of what He said. He said it was easier for "a camel to go through the eye of a needle" than for that to be the case -- not impossible, perhaps, but very, very challenging indeed.

It's absurd of you who knows Scripture so well to leave it to me who doesn't even belong to a church to preach Xian morality .

And yet, you managed to misunderstand it completely, it seems. So maybe I'm not the worst expositor of it in this conversation after all.

The passage reads thus:

[

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”]

Obviously, it is more difficult for anyone to get into the kingdom of God than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, "but with God all things are possible."

I see this passage misinterpreted over and over.

[Immanuel Can]

Everywhere and always there's an elite class so we can agree that socialist elite man is no better no worse than the average elite man. [

If "everywhere there's always an elite class," as you say, then there's no such thing as a Socialist society. There's no "triumph of the proletariat," or Communist utopia, either.

Yet still you argue that a rich man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

You should read what Christ said about that more carefully. You've actually said the opposite of what He said. He said it was easier for "a camel to go through the eye of a needle" than for that to be the case -- not impossible, perhaps, but very, very challenging indeed.

It's absurd of you who knows Scripture so well to leave it to me who doesn't even belong to a church to preach Xian morality .

And yet, you managed to misunderstand it completely, it seems. So maybe I'm not the worst expositor of it in this conversation after all.

The passage reads thus:

[

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”]

Obviously, it is more difficult for anyone to get into the kingdom of God than for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, "but with God all things are possible."

I see this passage misinterpreted over and over.

I don't know how B. got it wrong. It's pretty clear: being rich is not a condition of entrance to the Kingdom of God, nor of being kept out of it; but it does make things very difficult. And that makes perfect sense, in view of the circumstances, which are of the famous "Rich Young Ruler" having Christ's invitation to follow Him, but not being willing to accept it, due to his riches...see Mark 10:20-22.

[Belinda]

It does not, actually. It is not sustainable economically, and has to take the funds to run its programs from taxation, the funds for which come from business enterprise and free markets. What we have discovered from history is that any attempt to "socialize" the system as a whole has always resulted in economic suicide.

Look at where Cuba or Venezuela are right now. And who suffers most? The poor. And how is China sustaining itself? On what they call "Red Capitalism." Socialism is just a perennial failure. And the people it lets down worst are the most vulnerable. Meanwhile, the Socialist elites seem to live very well...

Everywhere and always there's an elite class so we can agree that socialist elite man is no better no worse than the average elite man. [

If "everywhere there's always an elite class," as you say, then there's no such thing as a Socialist society. There's no "triumph of the proletariat," or Communist utopia, either.

Yet still you argue that a rich man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

You should read what Christ said about that more carefully. You've actually said the opposite of what He said. He said it was easier for "a camel to go through the eye of a needle" than for that to be the case -- not impossible, perhaps, but very, very challenging indeed.

It's absurd of you who knows Scripture so well to leave it to me who doesn't even belong to a church to preach Xian morality .

And yet, you managed to misunderstand it completely, it seems. So maybe I'm not the worst expositor of it in this conversation after all.

Jesus made the point that a rich man can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The eye of the needle is said to be the nickname of a narrow gateway, too narrow for a camel, through the wall of Jerusalem.Feudal

The elite class is ubiquitous throughout all known societies. Socialists try to stop the elite class's becoming tyrannical or oppressive. Magna Carta is a feudal manifestation of the need for barons to regulate the powers of the king.

[Immanuel Can]

Everywhere and always there's an elite class so we can agree that socialist elite man is no better no worse than the average elite man. [

If "everywhere there's always an elite class," as you say, then there's no such thing as a Socialist society. There's no "triumph of the proletariat," or Communist utopia, either.

Yet still you argue that a rich man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

You should read what Christ said about that more carefully. You've actually said the opposite of what He said. He said it was easier for "a camel to go through the eye of a needle" than for that to be the case -- not impossible, perhaps, but very, very challenging indeed.

It's absurd of you who knows Scripture so well to leave it to me who doesn't even belong to a church to preach Xian morality .

And yet, you managed to misunderstand it completely, it seems. So maybe I'm not the worst expositor of it in this conversation after all.

Jesus made the point that a rich man can't enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

That's not what He said. Alexis quoted it correctly for you above, and you still haven't got it. Jesus Christ said that it was "hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom," not "impossible."

The eye of the needle is said to be the nickname of a narrow gateway, too narrow for a camel, through the wall of Jerusalem.

Well, whether Christ was using the metaphor of an actual needle or a gate is disputed by the experts; but we'll assume it's true. If it was a gate, then the "eye of the needle," historians tell us, was not too narrow for a camel...just too narrow for a laden camel. So a camel could get through it, IF it got down and was unsaddled and unladen, and it crawled through. That was what the gate was for, actually.

If correct, that would fit perfectly with what Jesus Christ said, and the context in which He said it. It's not impossible for the camel to go through the narrow gate: he just can't take his baggage along with him.

And the same is true for all of us: for, as they say, there are no "U-Haul" trailers behind a hearse.

The elite class is ubiquitous throughout all known societies. Socialists try to stop the elite class's becoming tyrannical or oppressive.

Not they don't. What they do instead is try to find a way to ingratiate themselves to that elite. They kiss up to it, and hope to be invited to join it, so that instead of being among the enslaved proles, they too can be part of the "soviet" or elite class. Don't you read history?

Magna Carta is a feudal manifestation of the need for barons to regulate the powers of the king.

And you imagine that "baron" means "Socialist"? The MC was a product of one elite class to manage the power of the monarch, not of feudal peasants achieving equality. Again: don't you read history?

[iambiguous]

"Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-26 New King James Version (NKJV)

So, it would seem by "hard" Jesus means "impossible".

After all, try to imagine a camel passing through the eye of a needle? Unless, perhaps, back then, camels were considerably smaller and the eyes of needles were considerably larger?

Besides, all of that would seem moot unless and until anyone [rich or poor] accepts Jesus Christ as their own personal savior.

Let's run this by, among others, Donald Trump.

Then back to this part...

Just out of curiosity, henry...

IC insists that if you choose of your own free will to watch these videos -- https://www.reasonablefaith.org/animate ... r8EALw_wcB -- you will encounter all of the historical and scientific evidence that you need in order to demonstrate that a God, the God is the Christian God.

Also, of your own free will, you can choose to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and be saved. In other words, according to him, you may well be free to choose the Deist God "here and now" but come Judgment Day...?

[Will Bouwman]

It's absurd of you who knows Scripture so well to leave it to me who doesn't even belong to a church to preach Xian morality .

I don't belong to a church either, but I went to a C of E primary school, listened to a Christian message and said a prayer every morning in assembly. I sang in the choir and when I went to Grammar school, was taught RE by the vicar of St Martin's. I was forged and polished in Christianity so for Immanuel Can to suggest others don't understand Christianity is just his usual useless fuckwittery. Christianity is at its best where it gives hope and comfort to the scared and the grieving. Perhaps that plays some role in Mr Can's devotion, but Christianity is at its worst when it is a vehicle for narcissism. Mr Can is a religious narcissist; he has done what all religious narcissists do, creating a god in his own image by picking the passages in the Bible that most chime with his charmless character. Misanthropes, misogynists, xenophobes, racists, heterosexists, onanophobes, in fact anyone who loathes anything, can find divine approval in, and appeal to the authority of the Bible. The genius of the collators was to assemble a book that could appeal to everyone; literally a catholic Bible.
Good people don't need religion to be good, they can feel empathy, compassion and love directly, without the filter of a third party arbiter. It is their tragedy that some people can't.

[Gary Childress]

"Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-26 New King James Version (NKJV)

So, it would seem by "hard" Jesus means "impossible".

To be fair, it does appear that Jesus maybe used the term "hard" and did not mean "impossible". (Or maybe "unbelievably hard" would be the right words.)

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, 'Who then can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

The saying was a response to a young rich man who had asked Jesus what he needed to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments, which the man replied that he had done so. Jesus responded, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The young man became sad and was unwilling to do that. Jesus then spoke that response, leaving his disciples astonished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle

[Gary Childress]

Welfare socialism does "deliver it"!

It does not, actually. It is not sustainable economically, and has to take the funds to run its programs from taxation, the funds for which come from business enterprise and free markets. What we have discovered from history is that any attempt to "socialize" the system as a whole has always resulted in economic suicide.

Look at where Cuba or Venezuela are right now. And who suffers most? The poor. And how is China sustaining itself? On what they call "Red Capitalism." Socialism is just a perennial failure. And the people it lets down worst are the most vulnerable. Meanwhile, the Socialist elites seem to live very well...

Everywhere and always there's an elite class so we can agree that socialist elite man is no better no worse than the average elite man. Yet still you argue that a rich man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

The Kingdom of Heaven is not to be evaluated in monetary profits but in the raising up of despairing poor people to proper pride and decent food on their tables.

It's absurd of you who knows Scripture so well to leave it to me who doesn't even belong to a church to preach Xian morality .

The Needle's Eye is said to be a nickname for a real historical gate into Jerusalem such a gate that a camel can't squeeze through it.

It seems that Jesus used the word "a needle" and not "the needle". That seems to lend to the argument that the fact that a gate was named the "Needle's Eye" and Jesus used a "needle" in his example could be coincidental and not of direct relation to one another.

[Gary Childress]

But not any better. There isn't a single case of a Socialist state ever working, or of what Marx said coming true. It was hokey from the get-go. But worse than that: it gave birth to what has proved to be the most homicidal set of creeds in human history.

Absolutely. And that's yet another way He was no Socialist: they sometimes talk that game, but they never deliver it.

But Jesus was totally apolitical. He did not teach revolution, or a dialectical view of conflict or history, or class struggle, or Materialism...and He taught divine justice, not "social justice." No wonder, then, that Marx identified "religion" (he knew only Judaism and Christianity) as the necessary subject of the first critique. He knew, if you didn't, that Socialism and Christianity are opposites. One teaches revolution in this world, and the other teaches moral obedience to the coming Kingdom of God. Marx couldn't live with that. So much the worse for Marx.

On the contrary: that you are the beneficiary of the IR an obvious fact. It's far more obvious than any debt you think you retain to slavery. Look around you: everything within the world you're living is a product of the IR. What, within your range of view at this moment, was not produced by the division of labour, capital profits, or industrial machinery? You'll have a hard time finding anything.

But you're wrong to assume me an "optimist" about the IR. I think the truth is that we're increasing our power without increasing our wisdom. And that's eventually going to bring the human race to tragedy.

Welfare socialism does "deliver it"!

It does not, actually. It is not sustainable economically, and has to take the funds to run its programs from taxation, the funds for which come from business enterprise and free markets. What we have discovered from history is that any attempt to "socialize" the system as a whole has always resulted in economic suicide.

Look at where Cuba or Venezuela are right now. And who suffers most? The poor. And how is China sustaining itself? On what they call "Red Capitalism." Socialism is just a perennial failure. And the people it lets down worst are the most vulnerable. Meanwhile, the Socialist elites seem to live very well...

Is it possible that welfare socialism is sustainable to the extent that it cannot be the only way that society operates? In other words, there need to be opportunities for individuals to innovate and produce wealth and personally benefit from their innovations and production, while at the same time ensuring that superfluous members of society are not abandoned on the curb to just die.

When you use the term "socialism" do you mean that any and all public assistance or welfare programs are "socialism" and therefore bad? For example, is Canada a "socialist" country because of its medical system or is it a 'society that has social programs' that may be needed?

[Immanuel Can]

Welfare socialism does "deliver it"!

It does not, actually. It is not sustainable economically, and has to take the funds to run its programs from taxation, the funds for which come from business enterprise and free markets. What we have discovered from history is that any attempt to "socialize" the system as a whole has always resulted in economic suicide.

Look at where Cuba or Venezuela are right now. And who suffers most? The poor. And how is China sustaining itself? On what they call "Red Capitalism." Socialism is just a perennial failure. And the people it lets down worst are the most vulnerable. Meanwhile, the Socialist elites seem to live very well...

Is it possible that welfare socialism is sustainable to the extent that it cannot be the only way that society operates? In other words, there need to be opportunities for individuals to innovate and produce wealth and personally benefit from their innovations and production, while at the same time ensuring that superfluous members of society are not abandoned on the curb to just die.

Exactly right, Gary.

It's not that we can't have "charity" programs or "welfare" activities of various kinds. In fact, we absolutely should...for moral reasons. A compassionate group of people, a compassionate and decent society, should definitely take care of its weak and faltering members. If it didn't, it would be an evil and selfish society.

But if we imagine that government will substitute for personal charitability and charity, we've gone badly wrong. Morality is always a personal matter. Social systems are not compassionate, and cannot be -- they are things. As things, they have no conscience, no responsibility, no care. They're not self-renewing, not sensitive anymore, not responsive to changing needs or realities. They're impersonal. Only persons have a conscience, have compassion and have moral responsibility. The minute we sublet our own moral sense to the State, it's gone: what will follow will be some institution, which was maybe well-intended by its inventors, but which continually deteriorates in relation to its practical use as mercy or charity, and certainly in relation to its sustainability. Only the lively consciences of individual people can keep a thing alive; and a State system has eliminated the personal in favour of the institutional.

So the trick is to keep ourselves from downloading our own moral responsibility and active involvement to the monolythic State. There's a temptation to do that, because it makes me feel free from personal responsibility -- it's "being taken care of," without my caring anymore. But that's wrong. And in my heart, I know it's wrong: I should care. I should be involved. Charity and mercy are my job. So I should at least be involved with the continual reforming and improving of the institution, and personally committed to the good of others, as well.

So what we need is not "Socialism," but socially-morally people. We don't need an ideology of State control, a downloading of my moral responsibility onto some institutional arrangment that does it for me, but rather an active participation of me in the good of humanity.

When you use the term "socialism" do you mean that any and all public assistance or welfare programs are "socialism" and therefore bad? For example, is Canada a "socialist" country because of its medical system or is it a 'society that has social programs' that may be needed?

No. No to both questions, actually. Canada is not a Socialist country, but rather, one with some social-welfare programs. And we would be dishonest if we didn't recognize how poorly Canada's social-welfare programs are working out. There are reasons for that, and sustainability is far away from Canada's social system, for sure -- and absent sustainability, economic collapse happens, and far more people are ejected into the streets, into suffering and death, than would otherwise ever have happened; so sustainability is not an idle concern. But the main problem, again, is that they are institutions: they are impersonal, inflexible, amoral, indifferent to suffering, and unreliable. They're bankrupting Canada, which suffers under a punitively-high tax rate, plus a government the inefficiency of which is staggering to realize. Is it not immoral to steal citizens' money, and spend it on lear jets and perks for corporations instead of helping the poor? Yet that is exactly what Canada's government has been doing.

Canada is full of crony-Socialism, which means "Socialized systems for the poor, plus huge tax-grabs for the rich and powerful, plus a deplorable level of waste and inefficiency." But Socialism ALWAYS turns into crony-Socialism, because the people we appoint to the elite roles are just as corrupt, selfish, and indifferent to suffering as anybody tends to be. They're not special people: they're the same old fallible type, whom power only makes worse, not better.

So again, what we need is not Socialism, which is just an institutional ideology of the State, but rather a lively and active moral reform of the people, so that our arrangements and institutions can be genuinely compassionate, flexible, sensitive, efficient and sustainable. And we'll never get that from a State arrangment.