The Teabagger Anti-Socialist Purity Pledge
I’ve long wondered why the people who so strenuously object to socialized medicine have no problem with other socialized services, such as police and fire protection (on the government monopoly model) and education (the “public option”/private competition model). This bit of satire makes the point better than I could. I was hoping to be able to attribute it (it came anonymously as an e-mail) but on a quick Google, I found that it’s a very popular text, but couldn’t locate a source.
I, ________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:
I will complain about the destruction of 1st Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 1st Amendment Rights.
I will complain about the destruction of my 2nd Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights by legally but brazenly brandishing unconcealed firearms in public.
I will foreswear the time-honored principles of fairness, decency, and respect by screaming unintelligible platitudes regarding tyranny, Nazi-ism, and socialism at public town halls. Also.
I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:
* Social Security
* Medicare/Medicaid
* State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
* Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
* US Postal Service
* Roads and Highways
* Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
* The US Railway System
* Public Subways and Metro Systems
* Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
* Rest Areas on Highways
* Sidewalks
* All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009 federal senate appropriations)
* Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
* Public and State Universities and Colleges
* Public Primary and Secondary Schools
* Sesame Street
* Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
* Public Museums
* Libraries
* Public Parks and Beaches
* State and National Parks
* Public Zoos
* Unemployment Insurance
* Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services
* Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, State or Federal Government (pretty much all of them)
* Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)
* Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)
* Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD’s ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking
* Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
* Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies
If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forego my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care
I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.
I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of socialist locations, including but not limited to:
* Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History
* The socialist Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments
* The government-operated Statue of Liberty
* The Grand Canyon
* The socialist World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials
* The government-run socialist-propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery
* All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state or in Washington, DC
I will urge my Member of Congress and Senators to forego their government salary and government-provided healthcare.
I will oppose and condemn the government-funded and therefore socialist military of the United States of America.
I will boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods for our socialist army.
I will protest socialist security departments such as the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice and their socialist employees.
Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up my socialist Social Security checks.
Upon reaching age 65, I will forego Medicare and pay for my own private health insurance until I die.
SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF __________ IN THE YEAR ___.
_____________ _________________________
Signed Printed Name/Town and State
Spread it around!
A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com
I find, as I do for most who proclaim themselves “Socialist” that you “mix and match” activities, as if they are all the same. Police and Fire are not “socialist” activities. They are quite genuine functions of any Government. They are quite reasonable, because they are extensions of citizen activities, such as self-defense, and defense of property. Just as the Armed Forces can be a legitimate extension of the Militia, presuming an effective control of them by civilian authorities.
On the other hand (OTOH), socialism at its heart says that no individual is competent to decide their own actions. All decisions, such as laws, medical treatments, housing, food quality and quantity, are to be decided by a committee.
Which is fine on a theoretical basis.
Where it falls apart, is Human Nature. It’s Human nature, proven repeatedly every time it has been tried that Mankind is ambitious. If I earn $100,000 and am allowed to keep only $50,000, I will accommodate my efforts to earn _only_ $50.000. I will simply refuse to earn more than that.
It works the same way with growing food, or any other activity. And no one can force me to earn more, grow more, or produce more than I choose. Socialism can only work as long as there is surplus to be passed along to the ones unwilling to produce anything at all. If, for whatever reason, there _is_no_ surplus, then you must confiscate from those who produce anything at all.
For example, in a society of 100, as long a 50 produce twice what they need, there is surplus for the other 50. If however, the same 50 produce only enough for themselves, there is nothing for the “Governing committee,” to disburse under the rules of Socialism. If they committee takes from the productive 50 (who produced only enough for themselves), then all 100 do not have enough to eat.
Capitalism, OTOH permits all those who wish to, to produce as much as they choose. Then, if only 50 produce 2 X (x being enough to eat), and the others nothing, the original 50 can share, and no one goes hungry. If the second 50 choose to produce nothing at all, they risk killing themselves. Which they have every right to do. Of course, that isn’t likely, because facing the risk of death, most if not all the second 50, will produce some amount. This will lead the other 50, to share some of their “excess,” without being forced.
The basic problem of Socialism, as it “works” in theory, ignores that a large Number of people are unwilling/unable to put forth more than minimal efforts. Especially of there are no consequences to such actions. If you know children, you know that they respond to one of two forces. These are Internal, and External.
Internal forces are Hunger, thirst, and sexual desire. External forces are pain, and forced withdrawal of items to offset Internal forces. Examples of these are: withholding of affection (or perceived such); pain of physical punishment (reasonable spanking, not abuse); forced withdrawal from society (prison); forced to do without food; and finally execution, for the absolutely incorrigible.
The unfortunate truth is that if Mankind were good enough for Socialism to work, Anarchy (no government at all), would be possible. There would be no starvation, and no laws to force sharing, because all would produce enough to eat, or have sufficient to share, with others. There would be no need for an oversight committee to parcel out excess, as it would be done by those producing more than they need. In logic terms that means Socialism, in order to work, would be a “null term.” The conditions to make it work, would actually prevent the need for it.
Unfortunately, pure capitalism can’t work for the same reasons. People being, as I said, ambitious means that some number of the 100 would not share under any circumstance, just as some number would refuse to produce anything at all. In truth, pure capitalism, means that those producing would do so, in a way to benefit all, to the greatest extent possible. Nothing would be wasted, because it would be seen as input to a process for making money. (In this case, saving is equivalent to earning.) Where the theory breaks down, is when outside forces (usually Government) interfere.
If I take in 5 tons of substance A, to produce enough widgets to satisfy the market, and have 2 tons of substance B left. As long as I am allowed to do what I wish, I can sell the 2 tons of B to someone who uses it to produce something saleable. OTOH, if Government says I cannot sell B, or do so without onerous regulations and costs, it becomes waste product, not saleable resources. This makes it a win?-lose-lose. I win?, but pay more to dispose of B, causing me to charge more for my products. The Enterprise that would have bought B, as an input resource, loses, and so does the environment. Whereas under properly functioning capitalism, it is a win-win-win, process.
Great rant, Walter, thanks. I even agree with some of it, especially the part about government should not be interfering when companies attempt to turn their wast stream into marketable inputs for someone else (as long as pollution controls are in place). However, I don’t see that socializing certain kinds of public good such as health care or education is materially different than socializing others, such as police and fire. There have certainly been models of privatized public protection services over the years.
I find, as I do for most who proclaim themselves “Socialist” that you “mix and match” activities, as if they are all the same. Police and Fire are not “socialist” activities. They are quite genuine functions of any Government. They are quite reasonable, because they are extensions of citizen activities, such as self-defense, and defense of property. Just as the Armed Forces can be a legitimate extension of the Militia, presuming an effective control of them by civilian authorities.
On the other hand (OTOH), socialism at its heart says that no individual is competent to decide their own actions. All decisions, such as laws, medical treatments, housing, food quality and quantity, are to be decided by a committee.
Which is fine on a theoretical basis.
Where it falls apart, is Human Nature. It’s Human nature, proven repeatedly every time it has been tried that Mankind is ambitious. If I earn $100,000 and am allowed to keep only $50,000, I will accommodate my efforts to earn _only_ $50.000. I will simply refuse to earn more than that.
It works the same way with growing food, or any other activity. And no one can force me to earn more, grow more, or produce more than I choose. Socialism can only work as long as there is surplus to be passed along to the ones unwilling to produce anything at all. If, for whatever reason, there _is_no_ surplus, then you must confiscate from those who produce anything at all.
For example, in a society of 100, as long a 50 produce twice what they need, there is surplus for the other 50. If however, the same 50 produce only enough for themselves, there is nothing for the “Governing committee,” to disburse under the rules of Socialism. If they committee takes from the productive 50 (who produced only enough for themselves), then all 100 do not have enough to eat.
Capitalism, OTOH permits all those who wish to, to produce as much as they choose. Then, if only 50 produce 2 X (x being enough to eat), and the others nothing, the original 50 can share, and no one goes hungry. If the second 50 choose to produce nothing at all, they risk killing themselves. Which they have every right to do. Of course, that isn’t likely, because facing the risk of death, most if not all the second 50, will produce some amount. This will lead the other 50, to share some of their “excess,” without being forced.
The basic problem of Socialism, as it “works” in theory, ignores that a large Number of people are unwilling/unable to put forth more than minimal efforts. Especially of there are no consequences to such actions. If you know children, you know that they respond to one of two forces. These are Internal, and External.
Internal forces are Hunger, thirst, and sexual desire. External forces are pain, and forced withdrawal of items to offset Internal forces. Examples of these are: withholding of affection (or perceived such); pain of physical punishment (reasonable spanking, not abuse); forced withdrawal from society (prison); forced to do without food; and finally execution, for the absolutely incorrigible.
The unfortunate truth is that if Mankind were good enough for Socialism to work, Anarchy (no government at all), would be possible. There would be no starvation, and no laws to force sharing, because all would produce enough to eat, or have sufficient to share, with others. There would be no need for an oversight committee to parcel out excess, as it would be done by those producing more than they need. In logic terms that means Socialism, in order to work, would be a “null term.” The conditions to make it work, would actually prevent the need for it.
Unfortunately, pure capitalism can’t work for the same reasons. People being, as I said, ambitious means that some number of the 100 would not share under any circumstance, just as some number would refuse to produce anything at all. In truth, pure capitalism, means that those producing would do so, in a way to benefit all, to the greatest extent possible. Nothing would be wasted, because it would be seen as input to a process for making money. (In this case, saving is equivalent to earning.) Where the theory breaks down, is when outside forces (usually Government) interfere.
If I take in 5 tons of substance A, to produce enough widgets to satisfy the market, and have 2 tons of substance B left. As long as I am allowed to do what I wish, I can sell the 2 tons of B to someone who uses it to produce something saleable. OTOH, if Government says I cannot sell B, or do so without onerous regulations and costs, it becomes waste product, not saleable resources. This makes it a win?-lose-lose. I win?, but pay more to dispose of B, causing me to charge more for my products. The Enterprise that would have bought B, as an input resource, loses, and so does the environment. Whereas under properly functioning capitalism, it is a win-win-win, process.
Great rant, Walter, thanks. I even agree with some of it, especially the part about government should not be interfering when companies attempt to turn their wast stream into marketable inputs for someone else (as long as pollution controls are in place). However, I don’t see that socializing certain kinds of public good such as health care or education is materially different than socializing others, such as police and fire. There have certainly been models of privatized public protection services over the years.
I find, as I do for most who proclaim themselves “Socialist” that you “mix and match” activities, as if they are all the same. Police and Fire are not “socialist” activities. They are quite genuine functions of any Government. They are quite reasonable, because they are extensions of citizen activities, such as self-defense, and defense of property. Just as the Armed Forces can be a legitimate extension of the Militia, presuming an effective control of them by civilian authorities.
On the other hand (OTOH), socialism at its heart says that no individual is competent to decide their own actions. All decisions, such as laws, medical treatments, housing, food quality and quantity, are to be decided by a committee.
Which is fine on a theoretical basis.
Where it falls apart, is Human Nature. It’s Human nature, proven repeatedly every time it has been tried that Mankind is ambitious. If I earn $100,000 and am allowed to keep only $50,000, I will accommodate my efforts to earn _only_ $50.000. I will simply refuse to earn more than that.
It works the same way with growing food, or any other activity. And no one can force me to earn more, grow more, or produce more than I choose. Socialism can only work as long as there is surplus to be passed along to the ones unwilling to produce anything at all. If, for whatever reason, there _is_no_ surplus, then you must confiscate from those who produce anything at all.
For example, in a society of 100, as long a 50 produce twice what they need, there is surplus for the other 50. If however, the same 50 produce only enough for themselves, there is nothing for the “Governing committee,” to disburse under the rules of Socialism. If they committee takes from the productive 50 (who produced only enough for themselves), then all 100 do not have enough to eat.
Capitalism, OTOH permits all those who wish to, to produce as much as they choose. Then, if only 50 produce 2 X (x being enough to eat), and the others nothing, the original 50 can share, and no one goes hungry. If the second 50 choose to produce nothing at all, they risk killing themselves. Which they have every right to do. Of course, that isn’t likely, because facing the risk of death, most if not all the second 50, will produce some amount. This will lead the other 50, to share some of their “excess,” without being forced.
The basic problem of Socialism, as it “works” in theory, ignores that a large Number of people are unwilling/unable to put forth more than minimal efforts. Especially of there are no consequences to such actions. If you know children, you know that they respond to one of two forces. These are Internal, and External.
Internal forces are Hunger, thirst, and sexual desire. External forces are pain, and forced withdrawal of items to offset Internal forces. Examples of these are: withholding of affection (or perceived such); pain of physical punishment (reasonable spanking, not abuse); forced withdrawal from society (prison); forced to do without food; and finally execution, for the absolutely incorrigible.
The unfortunate truth is that if Mankind were good enough for Socialism to work, Anarchy (no government at all), would be possible. There would be no starvation, and no laws to force sharing, because all would produce enough to eat, or have sufficient to share, with others. There would be no need for an oversight committee to parcel out excess, as it would be done by those producing more than they need. In logic terms that means Socialism, in order to work, would be a “null term.” The conditions to make it work, would actually prevent the need for it.
Unfortunately, pure capitalism can’t work for the same reasons. People being, as I said, ambitious means that some number of the 100 would not share under any circumstance, just as some number would refuse to produce anything at all. In truth, pure capitalism, means that those producing would do so, in a way to benefit all, to the greatest extent possible. Nothing would be wasted, because it would be seen as input to a process for making money. (In this case, saving is equivalent to earning.) Where the theory breaks down, is when outside forces (usually Government) interfere.
If I take in 5 tons of substance A, to produce enough widgets to satisfy the market, and have 2 tons of substance B left. As long as I am allowed to do what I wish, I can sell the 2 tons of B to someone who uses it to produce something saleable. OTOH, if Government says I cannot sell B, or do so without onerous regulations and costs, it becomes waste product, not saleable resources. This makes it a win?-lose-lose. I win?, but pay more to dispose of B, causing me to charge more for my products. The Enterprise that would have bought B, as an input resource, loses, and so does the environment. Whereas under properly functioning capitalism, it is a win-win-win, process.
Great rant, Walter, thanks. I even agree with some of it, especially the part about government should not be interfering when companies attempt to turn their wast stream into marketable inputs for someone else (as long as pollution controls are in place). However, I don’t see that socializing certain kinds of public good such as health care or education is materially different than socializing others, such as police and fire. There have certainly been models of privatized public protection services over the years.
I find, as I do for most who proclaim themselves “Socialist” that you “mix and match” activities, as if they are all the same. Police and Fire are not “socialist” activities. They are quite genuine functions of any Government. They are quite reasonable, because they are extensions of citizen activities, such as self-defense, and defense of property. Just as the Armed Forces can be a legitimate extension of the Militia, presuming an effective control of them by civilian authorities.
On the other hand (OTOH), socialism at its heart says that no individual is competent to decide their own actions. All decisions, such as laws, medical treatments, housing, food quality and quantity, are to be decided by a committee.
Which is fine on a theoretical basis.
Where it falls apart, is Human Nature. It’s Human nature, proven repeatedly every time it has been tried that Mankind is ambitious. If I earn $100,000 and am allowed to keep only $50,000, I will accommodate my efforts to earn _only_ $50.000. I will simply refuse to earn more than that.
It works the same way with growing food, or any other activity. And no one can force me to earn more, grow more, or produce more than I choose. Socialism can only work as long as there is surplus to be passed along to the ones unwilling to produce anything at all. If, for whatever reason, there _is_no_ surplus, then you must confiscate from those who produce anything at all.
For example, in a society of 100, as long a 50 produce twice what they need, there is surplus for the other 50. If however, the same 50 produce only enough for themselves, there is nothing for the “Governing committee,” to disburse under the rules of Socialism. If they committee takes from the productive 50 (who produced only enough for themselves), then all 100 do not have enough to eat.
Capitalism, OTOH permits all those who wish to, to produce as much as they choose. Then, if only 50 produce 2 X (x being enough to eat), and the others nothing, the original 50 can share, and no one goes hungry. If the second 50 choose to produce nothing at all, they risk killing themselves. Which they have every right to do. Of course, that isn’t likely, because facing the risk of death, most if not all the second 50, will produce some amount. This will lead the other 50, to share some of their “excess,” without being forced.
The basic problem of Socialism, as it “works” in theory, ignores that a large Number of people are unwilling/unable to put forth more than minimal efforts. Especially of there are no consequences to such actions. If you know children, you know that they respond to one of two forces. These are Internal, and External.
Internal forces are Hunger, thirst, and sexual desire. External forces are pain, and forced withdrawal of items to offset Internal forces. Examples of these are: withholding of affection (or perceived such); pain of physical punishment (reasonable spanking, not abuse); forced withdrawal from society (prison); forced to do without food; and finally execution, for the absolutely incorrigible.
The unfortunate truth is that if Mankind were good enough for Socialism to work, Anarchy (no government at all), would be possible. There would be no starvation, and no laws to force sharing, because all would produce enough to eat, or have sufficient to share, with others. There would be no need for an oversight committee to parcel out excess, as it would be done by those producing more than they need. In logic terms that means Socialism, in order to work, would be a “null term.” The conditions to make it work, would actually prevent the need for it.
Unfortunately, pure capitalism can’t work for the same reasons. People being, as I said, ambitious means that some number of the 100 would not share under any circumstance, just as some number would refuse to produce anything at all. In truth, pure capitalism, means that those producing would do so, in a way to benefit all, to the greatest extent possible. Nothing would be wasted, because it would be seen as input to a process for making money. (In this case, saving is equivalent to earning.) Where the theory breaks down, is when outside forces (usually Government) interfere.
If I take in 5 tons of substance A, to produce enough widgets to satisfy the market, and have 2 tons of substance B left. As long as I am allowed to do what I wish, I can sell the 2 tons of B to someone who uses it to produce something saleable. OTOH, if Government says I cannot sell B, or do so without onerous regulations and costs, it becomes waste product, not saleable resources. This makes it a win?-lose-lose. I win?, but pay more to dispose of B, causing me to charge more for my products. The Enterprise that would have bought B, as an input resource, loses, and so does the environment. Whereas under properly functioning capitalism, it is a win-win-win, process.
Great rant, Walter, thanks. I even agree with some of it, especially the part about government should not be interfering when companies attempt to turn their wast stream into marketable inputs for someone else (as long as pollution controls are in place). However, I don’t see that socializing certain kinds of public good such as health care or education is materially different than socializing others, such as police and fire. There have certainly been models of privatized public protection services over the years.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by shelhorowitz: New blog post: The Teabagger Anti-Socialist Purity Pledge https://bit.ly/dfznGj…
Can’t take credit, just passed it on RT @jcsimonds: Fantastic Tea-Bagger Pledge by @shelhorowitz Spread it arnd! https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlp9
Can’t take credit, just passed it on RT @jcsimonds: Fantastic Tea-Bagger Pledge by @shelhorowitz Spread it arnd! https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlp9
Can’t take credit, just passed it on RT @jcsimonds: Fantastic Tea-Bagger Pledge by @shelhorowitz Spread it arnd! https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlp9
Can’t take credit, just passed it on RT @jcsimonds: Fantastic Tea-Bagger Pledge by @shelhorowitz Spread it arnd! https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlp9
Fantastic Tea-Bagger Pledge by @shelhorowitz Spread it around! #humor #politics https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlp9
Fantastic Tea-Bagger Pledge by @shelhorowitz Spread it around! #humor #politics https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlp9
Fantastic Tea-Bagger Pledge by @shelhorowitz Spread it around! #humor #politics https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlp9
Fantastic Tea-Bagger Pledge by @shelhorowitz Spread it around! #humor #politics https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlp9
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ShelHorowitzGreenMkt, Jacqueline Simonds. Jacqueline Simonds said: Fantastic Tea-Bagger Pledge by @shelhorowitz Spread it around! #humor #politics https://tinyurl.com/yaqvlp9 […]