Liberty In Our Time: George Reisman- 'Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian'

Source:Liberty In Our Time- George Reisman giving a lecture in 2010 about Nazism.

"Lecture presented by George Reisman at the Ludwig von Mises Institute event "The Economics of Fascism," held at Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama; 7-8 October 2005. The senior and adjunct faculty of the Institute discuss the history, theory, and contemporary meaning of the fascist temptation, and what the Austrian economists are doing to combat it." 

From Liberty In Our Time 

"Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsiɪzəm, ˈnæt-/ NA(H)T-see-iz-əm),[1] the common name in English for National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus, German: [natsi̯oˈnaːlzotsi̯aˌlɪsmʊs] (audio speaker iconlisten)), is the ideology and practices associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP; or National Socialist German Workers' Party in English) in Nazi Germany. During Hitler's rise to power in 1930s Europe, it was frequently referred to as Hitlerism. The later related term "neo-Nazism" is applied to other far-right groups with similar ideas which formed after the collapse of the Nazi regime.

Nazism is a form of fascism,[2][3][4][5] with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. It incorporates fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, scientific racism, and the use of eugenics into its creed. Its extreme nationalism originated in pan-Germanism and the ethno-nationalist neopagan Völkisch movement which had been a prominent aspect of German nationalism since the late 19th century, and it was strongly influenced by the Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged after Germany's defeat in World War I, from which came the party's underlying "cult of violence".[6] Nazism subscribed to pseudo-scientific theories of a racial hierarchy[7] and social Darwinism, identifying the Germans as a part of what the Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race.[8] It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous German society based on racial purity which represented a people's community (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum and exclude those whom they deemed either Community Aliens or "inferior" races.

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organisation,[9] which tended to match the general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism rather than economic socialism. The Nazi Party's precursor, the pan-German nationalist and antisemitic German Workers' Party (DAP), was founded on 5 January 1919. By the early 1920s, the party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party to attract workers away from left-wing parties such as the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Communists (KPD), and Adolf Hitler assumed control of the organisation. The National Socialist Program, or "25 Points", was adopted in 1920 and called for a united Greater Germany that would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent, while also supporting land reform and the nationalisation of some industries. In Mein Kampf, literally "My Struggle", published in 1925–1926, Hitler outlined the antisemitism and anti-communism at the heart of his political philosophy as well as his disdain for representative democracy and his belief in Germany's right to territorial expansion." 

From Wikipedia 

"Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3][4] of the means of production,[5][6][7][8] as opposed to private ownership.[4][9][10] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective, or cooperative.[12] While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[13] social ownership is the one common element.[1][9][10] Socialisms vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favouring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach. Socialists disagree on whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[14][15]

Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms.[16] Non-market socialism substitutes factor markets and often money with integrated economic planning and engineering or technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing a different economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws and dynamics than those of capitalism.[17][18][19][20] A non-market socialist system seeks to eliminate the perceived inefficiencies, irrationalities, and unpredictability, and crises that socialists traditionally associate with capital accumulation and the profit system in capitalism.[21][22][23][24] The socialist calculation debate, originated by the economic calculation problem,[25][26] concerns the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a planned socialist system.[27][28][29] By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.[30][31][32] Anarchism and libertarian socialism oppose the use of the state as a means to establish socialism, favouring decentralisation above all, whether to establish non-market socialism or market socialism." 

From Wikipedia 

This is an interesting debate to about what is Nazism and is it left-wing or right-wing. True, Nazis are very populist when it comes to economic policy and the German National Socialist Party in the 1930s (or Nazi Party) believed in national ownership of the national economy. But we're obviously not talking about Social Democrats here or even Communists. 

Nazis are right-wing Fascist-Nationalists, who believe they're the superior people and culture (meaning ethnic Germans) and that everyone in Germany whose not an ethnic-German, is anti-German and therefor not deserving of the same national and constitutional rights as ethnic German citizens of Germany. 

If you want to say that Nazis are right-wing Socialists (which obviously sounds like an Oxymoron, similar to Libertarian-Socialist) fine, because of the beliefs in state-ownership of the economy, wage and price controls and the whole Communist playbook when it comes to economic policy. But the Nazis were' very different from Communists when it came to race and ethnic relations, as well as culture, and even different from American Nationalists, because American Nationalists tend to argue that what they're doing is in the name of God and tend to claim to be very religious. Whereas Nazis are not just secular, but also believe in state Atheism, where private religion wouldn't be allowed. 

Jason Wright: 'Tribute to Ronald Reagan (2006)'

Source:Jason Wright- President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) 40th President of the United States (1981-89)

“I created this more than ten years ago for a special dinner in Washington called the Ronald Reagan Award Gala. Seems his messages are just as important today as they were decades ago.”

From Jason Wright 

Happy New Year everyone! I hope anyone reading this post is now at least somewhat sober and prepared to have a great 2012.

I wrote a piece last year for Ronald Reagan’s 100th Birthday laying out why even though I’m a Liberal Democrat, what I like and respect about President Reagan and I’ll probably be doing the same thing for his 101st birthday this year. And since we are just a little more than a month away from his birthday and with the Iowa Republican Caucus tomorrow, why not kick off 2012 for The FreeState with a look at Ron Reagan and the state of the current Republican Party.

We are about 24 hours away from the 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus which will decide who’ll have the momentum going into the New Hampshire primary. And the Republican Party still has no presidential candidate that resembles Ronald Reagan as a Reagan Conservative, a Classical Conservative. Who truly believed that big government was the problem with America and the way to get America going again was to get big government off the backs of the American people. And let free people live their lives.

All the GOP presidential candidates, of course except for Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, believe in some form of big government. Some new intrusion into the lives of the American people in how we can live our own lives and a new intrusion in how states can govern themselves. Even if they are within the U.S. Constitution. And got this idea that free people should be free to live their own lives. But as long as they are living them the way these Christian fundamentalists want them to live.

There isn’t a Constitutional Conservative, again except maybe Ron Paul and John Huntsman. I find that unbelievable that a political party that calls themselves the Republican Party, wouldn’t have a Constitutional Conservative, all these candidates except for again Paul and Huntsman.

Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman and I will just say it, Paul and Huntsman are running for President in the wrong party. And I guess have missed the memo, or something and haven’t figured that out all of these candidates except for Paul and Huntsman, want to change the U.S. Constitution to limit our individual liberty.

What happened to the Barry Goldwater/Ron Reagan Republican Party, Goldwater and Reagan are obviously dead. But their ideas are not, what happened to their supporters who voted for them. And the political activists that brought about the Reagan Revolution of 1980. Winning 44 States, 56% of the popular vote in the presidential election. Senate Republicans winning back the Senate for the first time since 1952.

These people again except for the Huntsman and Paul Supporters and few Members of Congress like Representative Paul, Senator Paul, Senator Lee, Senator Johnson, you don’t hear from Classical Conservatives in the Republican Party anymore.

The GOP is now dominated by Protestant fundamentalist, Big Government Republicans, that want to limit our individual liberty, not protect it. Barry Goldwater and Ron Reagan would not recognize the Republican Party today and I believe may even of left it.

You could get the sense of how Senator Goldwater felt about the current Republican Party in the late 80s and 90s after he had already left Congress. And neither one of them could win the Republican nomination for president in either 2008 or 2012. If they were able to run for it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

RT America: Thom Hartmann- 'No Mercy For American Convicts'

Source:RT America- Left-wing talk show host Thom Hartmann, appearing on President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the federal tax budget of the Russian government.[15][16] It operates pay television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, and Russian.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an "autonomous non-profit organization" founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[10][17] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[18][19][20] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (since 2010),[21] RT UK (since 2014) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5][6][7] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[8][9]

RT has been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[42] and conspiracy theories.[48] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[55] RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Ministry of Defence and stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[16][56] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[57] RT has been banned in Ukraine since 2014,[58] and in Latvia[59] and Lithuania[60] since 2020." 

From Wikipedia

"Reeducation vs. lock-up: what's right for American convicts? In Europe authorities work to reeducate and reintegrate the prison populations. In the US however authorizes prefer to lock them up for as long as possible. Radio Host Thom Hartmann argued that historically, due to the massive size of the United States, people were viewed as disposable, whereas in Europe people were more closely connected to one another because of the denser population centers. Today the US is confronting this issue head-on as US population density increases.  The US is large and hosts at least six distinct cultures, said Hartmann, which makes reform even more challenging."

From RT America

As long as you have what's called a corrections system, then that should mean something. That if you send people to prison for years and decades at a time, but you know they are one day going to get out because they do their time and don't get additional time by avoiding committing more felony's in prison, then we should make the term and system and corrections system actually mean that.

Otherwise we no longer have a corrections system, but a prison system or a human warehouse system. Where we just send people way to warehouse them do our best to make sure their human needs are met at tax payer expense at the expense of people who work for a living. And have made good decisions with their lives and avoided going to prison. We have now approaching 2M people in the corrections system in America.

And there are several factors we have so many prison inmates: our education system isn't doing a good enough job preparing our young people for life as adults. These kids don't get the education they need to survive in life and prosper in a legal way. So they end up hanging out with the wrong crowd, organized crime getting into trouble.

If you look at our prison inmate population, maybe half of them even graduated high school, very few have even ever been to college. We don't do a very good job of rehabilitating our prison inmates or even make the effort in some cases. San Quentin Prison in California is an example of a prison that tries to rehabilitate its inmates and they've had some success. And they ned up in prison with very little if any education and leave prison with the same situation.

What we should be doing is several things: I'm not making the argument for being soft on crime, or giving convicted felons amnesty and slapping them on the hand and hoping they don't do it again. It's called crime and punishment and prison for a reason. And prison inmates need to know they are in prison and why they are there. They shouldn't feel like they are getting a free vacation or going to summer camp for free either.

But having said all that it needs to be a productive experience for, the tax payers who are putting up the bills and deserve to have some security in their lives, the prison staff to make their jobs a little less dangerous. But also for the Prison Inmates so they know why they are there and get themselves the skills that they need to avoid coming back to prison in the future, by putting an end to their criminal careers. And having the skills that they need to get a good job and live a productive life legally in the free world. Something like 2/3 of all of our prison inmates end up back in prison. About the same percentage end up being released from prison while they are still living. We can do much better with our corrections system.

National Homeless: 'National Coalition For The Homeless'

Source:National Homeless- from a documentary about this organization.

"The National Coalition for the Homeless, founded in 1982, is a national network of people who are currently experiencing or who have experienced homelessness, activists and advocates, community-based and faith-based service providers, and others committed to a single mission. That mission, our common bond, is to end homelessness. We are committed to creating the systemic and attitudinal changes necessary to prevent and end homelessness. At the same time, we work to meet the immediate needs of people who are currently experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of doing so. We take as our first principle of practice that people who are currently experiencing homelessness or have formerly experienced homelessness must be actively involved in all of our work." 

From National Homeless

Now that we are just four days away from another Christmas and with an improving economy, Christmas will be a lot better for more families in America, but we'll still have people living on the streets, wondering where their next meal is coming from, addicted to alcohol, and other drugs, having mental issues, unemployed, etc. And all going through these things on the street, because they don't have a job and they can't afford a place to live. 

So if homeless people are lucky, they'll be able to stay in a homeless shelter for maybe one or two nights. And get enough food to eat while they are there, but then going through the same experiences all over again, that they were going through before they went to the shelter. 

Professor Milton Friedman: Free To Choose (1980) ‘How To Stay Free’

Source:Invest Bliguru- a House Agriculture Committee hearing in 1980.

“The Great Depression of the 1930s changed the public philosophy regarding the appropriate role of government in American life. Before the Depression, government was not assumed to have special responsibilities for individual or business welfare. The severity of the economic tragedy of the 1930s resulted in a dramatic change in public attitudes.

Many believed the Depression represented a “failure of capitalism.” Because of this alleged failure, government has ever since been expanding its power and the scope of its control. Government growth has resulted in waste, inefficiency, and a loss of personal freedom. Intended to serve the interests of the people, many governmental programs have been revealed to serve primarily the interests of the bureaucrats.

Many government programs serve at cross purposes. For example, different agencies attempt, on the one hand, to discourage use of tobacco as potentially dangerous to good health and, on the other hand, to encourage production of tobacco through subsidies to tobacco farmers. The list of government inconsistencies and inefficiencies goes on and on. Dr. Friedman, however, says that there is reason for optimism. Today, he notes, the public is better informed about these matters and is increasingly willing to take a stand against further unnecessary expansion of government services. He suggests the most fruitful approach is to remove discretionary budget power from the government. Friedman favors passage of a Constitutional amendment limiting the government’s budget and forcing government to work within that budget.

But this is only the first step. As Dr. Friedman points out, “What we need is widespread public recognition that the central government should be limited to its basic functions: defending the nation against foreign enemies, preserving order at home, and mediating our disputes. We must come to recognize that voluntary cooperation through the market and in other ways is a far better way to solve our problems than turning them over to the government.”

From Invest Bliguru 

I believe this is from the Free To Choose episode talking about the dangers of a big, centralized, national government, and what happens when you centralize a lot of national government power into on capital city.

Source:Professor Milton Friedman- during his 1979-80 PBS documentary Free To Choose.

If you look at the lobbying industry in America and why it’s so large and why they’ve become so powerful and have dominated Washington politics, preventing both good and bad things from happening and becoming law, it’s because as the famous bank robber Billy The Kid once said to why he robs banks, he said,: “Because that’s where the money is.” 

Why do lobbyists lobby Washington, because that’s where the power is. We now have a Federal budget of 3.7T$ and now have a public service of eight-million workers including Congress and their staffs. So of course they are going to lobby the Federal Government so much to represent their interests, because that’s where the power is.

If you look at the Washington skyline, especially downtown Washington, you’ll see a big beautiful city with lots of big beautiful buildings that take up a lot of space. Most of those buildings paid for by Federal tax revenue and most of those buildings are Federal property to house the thousands of Federal agency’s we have and thousands of Federal workers who work there. Do we need Federal campaign and lobbying reform, of course we do. But campaign finance and lobbying reform in America is not a silver bullet to fix the corruption in our Federal Government.

But as long as the Federal Government is as big and powerful as it is, lobbying will always be an issue in the Federal Government. Members of Congress will always be looking for the easiest way to get reelected and the fastest way to move up in the House and Senate and be planning their post Congressional careers. Well, the few members who actually leave Congress will be doing that. The others will concentrate on the easiest way to get reelected, move up in Leadership, perhaps land a sweet cabinet position or look to run for President themselves.  

If you want less lobbying and corruption in Washington, get the government power out of Washington and send it back to the states, localities, and the people themselves. As well as full-disclosure on all Federal lobbying and political activities in America. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: ‘That if You Want More Jobs, the Government Should Get Out of the Way’

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- Leon Botstein moderated this debate.

 

“As Mr. Botstein frames the question, “We are in a recession. Some people consider it a contained depression, perhaps the worst economic period since the Great Depression. And we don’t really know what to do about it.” Mr. Buckley thinks he does: “Bring back full employment by getting government out of the way.” After all, “A lot of people say they can’t build houses; they can’t afford the interest. Why is interest so high? Because of inflation. Who causes inflation? Only the government can cause inflation. The private sector has never discovered how to do it.” Mr. McGovern is equally sure that, say, the savings-and-loan crisis “is not the result of too much government intervention … Rather it is the opposite: the result of too little regulation and monitoring that permitted irresponsible S&L managers to rob that industry and the American public.” Mrs. Schlafly takes up the cudgels against overreaching legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the latest Clean Air Act, and we’re off on a vigorous exploration of what government can and can’t reasonably do.” 

From the Hoover Institution 

“Episode FLS112, Recorded on March 26, 1992

Guests: Richard K. Armey, Phyllis Schlafly, Herbert Stein, George S. (George Stanley) McGovern, Robert Eisner, Michael E. Kinsley, Hyman P. Minsky

For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

This looks like a debate between economic libertarians and people who would be called Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists everywhere else in the developed world, but since America is so special, they are called Liberals here. Because Americans leftists tend to be scared to death of the s-word. 

On the Right, you get government is already doing too much and what we need to do now is cut government, regulations, and taxes, and expand free trade in America. 

On the Left and actual Left (not liberal) you get government isn’t doing or taxing nearly enough and should be doing a lot more of that to meet the needs of the people and expand the economy. 

This is sort of a traditional left-wing vs right-wing debate in America about the role of government, that was brought to you by Firing Line With William F. Buckley.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

House Republicans: 'The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act'

Source:House Republicans- House Republicans on the Budget Committee talking about their government reform plan.

"The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act - Rep. Scott Garrett" 

From House Republicans

I'm actually disappointed in this new House GOP budget reform plan. And I know to be disappointed you have to expect something good that didn't happen. Like getting a new job, buying a house, whatever the case is or something awful happens to you that you weren't expecting like your kid being arrested or someone not able to come to your party or something. 

I would never vote for any of the House GOP budget plans, because it would force a lot of people who are unfortunately dependent on these Federal programs to drop out and go to the private sector. Instead of giving them the freedom of choice to do that for themselves. But I do like the new line-item-veto plan that was proposed by Representative Paul Ryan and Representative Chris Van Hollen (the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee) that I support. But thats it from the House GOP. And I like the idea of them trying to force the Federal Government to pay for all of its operations. 

I just wish House Republicans and broader Republican Party believed in fiscal responsibility during the Bush Administration when they controlled Congress and not just the House. And then they would have some credibility and we probably wouldn't be in the budget mess that we are in today, ut thats a different story. I do give them credit for at least being bold with the Ryan Plan, even though I would never vote for it. But this new plan is not only not a good idea, bringing all of these failing Federal agency's under the control of the Federal Government, but it's not bold either. 

The U.S. Postal Service is going bankrupt right now because instead of being run as an independent service, it has to ask Congress when it can go to the bathroom. And thats just one example. When they can blow their noses, eat lunch. Well, that might be slight exaggerations, but it's not run like the non-profit company that it should be 

If you want to win support of the American people, be big and think big by going big, while at the same time doing it in an intelligent matter. Don't stand in front of mice thinking you're the largest man in the world, when you're only 5'7 and way 150 pounds. Don't come out with broad reforms at one point without thinking them through like turning Medicare into a voucher system and then the next plan bring more control back to the Federal Government.