Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty


July 25, 2012 by  

The guilt feelings of those who have inherited great wealth often produce a desire in them to redistribute your wealth to those whom they deem to be in need.

In my new book, The Entrepreneur: The Way Back for the U.S. Economy, I pose the question: When the lessons of history so clearly demonstrate that redistribution of wealth always ends badly for a nation, what could possibly motivate so many people to ignore such evidence?

I believe the answer is to be found in an acronym I like to refer to as GAVEAD (guilt, arrogance, victimization, envy, anger, demonization). These negative character flaws are powerful human failings that cause people to place their desire for wealth without work above moral considerations.

At its worst, GAVEAD manifests itself in bloody revolutions, such as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 and Fidel Castro’s overthrow of the Batista regime in Cuba in 1959. I know of no place or time in history when GAVEAD-inspired revolutions achieved a better, freer life for anyone who was not part of the ruling elite.

Although all GAVEAD is harmful, the GAVEAD trait that most annoys me is guilt. Guilt is a mental condition often found in wealthy people (particularly on the East and West Coasts of the United States), most — but not all — of whom did not acquire their fortunes through their own efforts.

The Kennedys and Rockefellers are good examples of guilt-ridden heirs to fortunes. Even today, the descendants of Joseph P. Kennedy and John D. Rockefeller are among the biggest advocates of wealth redistribution. And the most visible guilt-ridden Rockefeller of all is Jay Rockefeller, long-time progressive Senator from West Virginia.

From a psychological standpoint, it’s not hard to understand why someone who has been able to live in luxury all his life without ever having to do any real work would be inclined toward feelings of guilt. The problem is that the guilt feelings of those who have inherited great wealth often produce a desire in them to redistribute your wealth to those whom they deem to be in need.

From Bobby Kennedy to Teddy Kennedy, and now in some of their most vile progeny, we see this phenomenon play out again and again. Because these people have no idea what it’s like to start and run a business, meet a payroll and fight to keep afloat despite excessive government taxation and regulation, it is understandable that they cannot relate to the entrepreneur.

But it’s not just those who inherited their wealth who are afflicted with guilt. Guilt is also prevalent in those who have come into a lot of money quickly, again without having to do any real work. If you’re thinking Hollywood, you’re on the right track.

The main reason so many actors talk as though they have tapioca between their ears is that they have acquired enormous wealth by doing nothing more than excelling at pretending to be someone else while in front of a movie camera.

What is not as easy to understand is how some people who have actually built great fortunes through entrepreneurship — through creativity and hard work — end up feeling guilty about their wealth. In this category, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner and Bill Gates come to mind.

I think we can safely give much of the credit for making the super rich feel guilty to the far-left media that no longer report the news, but instead work, using subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) ploys, to champion anticapitalist causes.

In his book White Guilt, Shelby Steele takes the guilt issue one step further by explaining that Americans are hopelessly trapped by the need to feel guilty for the sins of their fathers. Any person of color — not just black, but Arab, Latino, Asian or other — must be coddled and handed the keys to the country (or, at the very least, to the university of his or her choice). If you don’t agree, you are likely to be scorned by your friends and acquaintances and accused of lacking compassion.

A “Kinder, Gentler Nation”

If you have any doubts about how powerful media-induced guilt can be, think back on what happened as soon as Ronald Reagan left office. His successor, George Herbert Walker Bush, immediately started blathering about change, thereby beating Barack Obama to the punch by some 20 years.

When I say immediately, I’m talking about President Bush’s inauguration address. That was when he first made an appeal for Americans to join in an effort to create a “kinder, gentler nation” — a catchphrase that the media gleefully jumped on.

Never mind the fact that nations can be neither kind nor gentle. Only people can be kind or gentle — as well as nasty or harsh. But by implying that Americans were not kind and gentle, Bush also implied that they needed politicians to help them be so.

The biggest problem in this regard is that for decades Republicans have allowed their Democratic pals to make up the rules of the game. Their mantra has long been: “We must show Democrats we are reasonable, civil people who are willing to ‘reach across the aisle’ and ‘compromise.’” In other words, their desire for popularity trumps morality.

Finally, in 2001, with the country still reeling from Father George’s kinder, gentler nation talk, along came Son George, who, immediately after taking office, started blathering about a weird abstraction he called “compassionate conservatism.” RINOs seem to have an uncontrollable propensity toward guilt — and financial suicide.

Of course, there’s some pragmatism involved here as well. Most conservative politicians believe that the only way they can get elected to office, and re-elected, is to prove they are compassionate. But the term compassionate conservatism wrongly implies that true conservatism is not compassionate.

On the contrary, the term compassionate conservatism is a redundancy, because true conservatism (which, as Ronald Reagan pointed out, has libertarian principles at its heart) is compassionate.

America doesn’t need another Democratic Party. The one it has is already bankrupting and enslaving us. What it needs is a party that will stand up for freedom, and that would be possible only if its members would refuse to give in to the “G” word in GAVEAD.

The Entrepreneur

To learn about Robert Ringer’s
landmark new book,

The Entrepreneur:
The Way Back for the U.S. Economy
that is shocking the establishment …

Click Here

–Robert Ringer

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Age Of GAVEAD”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • DaveH

    And then there are those who suffer no guilt at all when helping themselves to other peoples’ money using Big Government as their Bully Boys.

    • atook

      I have never heard of a rich man who actually earned what they have.They typically have fallen into some deal with crooks like the cock brother father or took advantage of some government developement like Microsoft did wither internet and so on if you read real history and not false stories from your owners and preachers you would see the truth

      • momo

        Microsoft (Bill Gates, Paul Allen), got their big break by providing MS-DOS to IBM so their PC’s could run. The funny part is Allen paid some other comapny 50 grand for the DOS program!

      • Vigilant

        atook says, “I have never heard of a rich man who actually earned what they have.”

        Then you are deaf. And, no doubt, a paid Obama shill for parroting his recent words. Words, I might add, that are backfiring on him as we speak.

      • Sol of Texas

        I understand like Turner and Dell, much of the early Microsoft funding was provided by family or trust funds. Gates’ father was an affluent attorney. I’m told Gates was an arrogant punk (and typically employed questionable ethical business tactics) when he was hawking DOS.

        When IBM selected DOS as their standard PC operating system (rather than CPM or UNIX or porting MVS), commercial software development was probably set back 10 years. It gave Microsoft a virtual monopoly.

      • speedle

        Atook, you have never heard of self made rich people? Either you are a liar or you live in some kind of bubble equipped only with a speaker system blaring Obama speeches 24/7. In fact, it is those rich families (kennedys, Kerrys, etc.) that do fit your vision of rich folks that seem to be the political muscle always leveraging to get more taxes out of the middle class while they enrich themselves further through their political connections. Good grief man, wake up.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        You are parroting O’s speech.

      • John Illinois

        Atook, you are a MORON. No rich person ever got rich all by himself. They bring other people along with them. Bill Gates made his Billions by making something work. And there are a large number of people who are also millionaires, who just worked with and for him, and they made fortunes. Through out this country’s history, are hundreds of thousands of companies where not only did the founder get rich, but many of the rank and file employees did really well, too. I signed on 30 years after the founding of the company. I started as a road warrior, and retired as a road warrior. The pension is comfortable, but it was the stock options that I exercised that made me really well off.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Your first sentence is also an outright lie since you are posting on a computer and most assuredly follow Leftist propaganda sites and have followed Obama’s teachings.

      • eddie47d

        Is this the very ancient redistribution of wealth to the kings and nobles, the redistribution of wealth by communists who took everything from the wealthy and gave to the lesser class or do we mean the the new redistribution of wealth in America. Where the Middle Class has been sacked by the conglomerates and Elites and are forced to give up their status for the glory of those Elites. Who by the way have been making ungodly amounts of money at our expense. Upward the Elites march but why would a conservative care for they are the ones doing it.

      • May

        Ironic since there are many people, even homeless people (creator of Big Mama movies)who came from NOTHING and became rich all by themselves. Of course today this is much more difficult thanks to Overregulation and an other outright assaults on small business such as not being able to get even a small loan. We have excellent credit and STILL cannot get a loan. Those loans belong to loser solar companies like Obama’s friends (Solyndra). The difference is we, the taxpayer has to pay for those losers! If I fail in my company, NO ONE is on the hook for me!

      • Maddison908

        I started to write a comment here, then after reading the other comments, decided that since none of them had had the basics of American History in Junior High School, Senior High School, and definitely not in college, No one had read anything about the men like Ford, Carnegie, Edison, the Wright Brothers, or for that matter Eli Whitney (inventor of the cotton gin), taught to students the seventh grade in the 1940′s: there would be no use in my trying to explain that the men who made this country what it is today, came from backgrounds that demanded they either use their brains to invent something or spend their lives working at menial jobs for wages. It was the dreamers who made this country and themselves rich–not the government–how has Mr Obama made his millions, since becoming a Government employee (and yes he is now a millionaire although most people don’t want to think about that, after all he earned it because of his “poor” background.
        How many of you lived in Hawaii, much less Indonesia or Africa,. How many of you could go to Harvard on a full scholarship. I went to a Texas State University because my full tuition was less than $100.00 per semester and I worked as a student instructor for $0.50 per hour for 10 hours a week.) So, You must have not only blinders on,n but also be deaf to think anyone in the government means for you to share their wealth. The only wealth they want you to share is someone Else’s money, Do you really think that Gorbachev, or Putin are poor men, no it’s the common man who is poor and without any hope of doing better in Russia. And what about all those illegal immigrants from the Caribbean Islands,
        Mexico, how can those people, living in a third world country, where everyone but.the very top are poor, raise their they come to America, where they remember stories of there being a to make it rich. Of course, many of those doing this here and now are drug smugglers and gunrunners.
        So, vote as you will, but do not cry when the next four years is no better than the last or possibly worse, just follow along like the lost sheep and pray that God will help you, though you have been poor stewards of his gifts.

    • Flashy

      the alregst redistribution of wealth in the history of man is occurring. has been since 1980 with Reagan and the wealthy powerful elite and Big Corporations beginning the war on the Middle Class and America. And the screams as that redistribution is trying to be halted are laughable ….

      It’s like some guy yelling “I raped you and raped you and raped you… and you’re upset ???”

      • momo

        What’s your second word supposed to be?

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        mono, it doesn’t matter. Nothing he says makes sense anyway!

      • Sol of Texas


        I think Flashy was trying to say “largest”. As usual, he/she is mistaken. The redistribution of wealth began more like 110 years ago with the rise of the progressive (totalitarian) movement. Its rate has clearly quickened since LBJ introduced his so called “great society”.

        As a country, we continue to elect and re-elect the defenders of crony capitalism rather than proponents of enlightened capitalism.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      DaveH, have you had a chance to listen to Neil Boortz today. He did a reading from, called You didn’t build that (Readings from the Book of Barack). Parody of the government being put as substitute for God.

  • Michael J.

    The phenomenom you mention known as “white guilt” is fostered by political correctness, which was designed to bring about such effects.
    But white guilt is not limited to those who’ve aquired wealth by questionable means, such as the Kennedys, Rockefellars, but also individuals such as James Holmes, Jared Lochner and the Columbine shooters who express their inablity to cope with the indoctrination received while students of an education system that teaches hate for everything American by carrying out acts of violence. These victimized youngsters are expected to bear the burdens of life without the benefit of spiritually morality, respect for the rule of law, pride in heritage and love of country which prior generations were blessed with, which is also by design. The events unfolding on our nations campuses (and elsewhere) are a reflection of what is being taught there.

    • Warrior

      Too many broken families, too little respect being displayed.

    • Kate8

      Michael J. – So true.

      Of course, we all know that “redistibution of wealth” is nothing but a euphemism for ‘the elite own everything’, including us, and the rest of us are, across the board, relegated to impoverished slavery.

      I’m not sure guilt is really all that much of an issue with the elite. They were raised to believe they are rulers by ‘divine’ right. You might see guilt among the kids of less ‘noble’ wealth, whose parents worked their way up (rather than ‘old’ money) but failed to instill a work ethic in their kids. Then again, the schools and universities have promoted these communist/socialist ideas, and the kids have been ripe for indoctrination because of the obvious corruption in the economic world.

      If there was truly any guilt among the likes of the Rockefellers, they wouldn’t be engaged in such things as eugenics on multiple fronts. They’d be forking over their own money to causes that really help people, rather than phoney front groups, and instead of demanding that the “common rich” who actually worked their way up hand over the fruits of lifelong labor.

      Amazing to me that the dems are so unable to see this. I guess when you have sleazy politicians promising you a share of everyone else’s (except theirs) money, it’s best to be in denial about their true motives and character in order to justify it to yourselves.

      Amazing what people are willing to accept, promote and demand for “thirty pieces of silver”..

      • Sol of Texas

        Kate8 –

        I think you are largely correct.

  • Doc Sarvis

    The redistribution of wealth has, for the last few decades, been redistributed up to the top 1 or 2% of our population and most of the rest of us have been loosing ground all that time. The workers in the middle and lower class have been asked to do more for less while the opposite is true for those at the top.

    • Patriot1776

      Doc, while it is not arguable that the concentration of wealth is at the top, I can only express the view from where I stand. My parents were middle class, building from nothing and achieved through their hard work a comfortable life and retiring in the upper middle class level. I worked to pay my way through college and have built a decent life through many hours and years of working and earning promotions. I am certainly not in the top 1 or 2%, nor even in the top 25 or 30%, but I have earned what I have. At least in this great nation, we have the opportunity to pull ourselves up to a higher level. I am not willing to take the risks or put in the time to build my own business, but I do not hold any kind of grudge against those individuals who have taken the risks, put in the hours, and have achieved success. They do not owe me for their success. They do not owe the government for their success. They have worked and earned it for themselves and should be able to enjoy the fruits of their success.

      The ones that should be chastised are the members of Congress who have built their fortunes off the back of the working class. Raising their salaries and granting themselves perks and benefits and bestowing on themselves an aristocratic status. It is not the entreprenuer but the politician that is causing the downfall of America.

      • Doc Sarvis

        I am not against being rich. I am against the rich writing the rules in favor of the rich to become even more rich. This is multiplied by the conservative Supreme Court’s decision on the Citizen’s United case, allowing corportations to act as “people” to fund candidates that will vote for the rich. This concentrates the wealth to the very few while making financial resources scarce to the hard working masses. My background is similar to what you describe, but it is becoming far less possible for us and our children to make the life that our parents did when the “available’ financial resources are being redistributed to the top (by the top’s policies).

      • Brad

        Amen Brother you are 100% correct P1776!!!

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Doc Sarvis, of course you are against people who want to become the rich by their own wits, hard work, inventions,ideas,Individualism.
        Except you are not against the rich who use the strong arm of government to make themselves rich by blocking everyone else’s path by regulations and favoritism.

      • eddie47d

        No I would say he is against Corporate manipulation of the consumer,Wall Street manipulation of the markets,the cheating that goes on in the banking industry,the unearned income that sports jocks collect,the con artists in the local investing firms, the false inflating of prices in the housing and mortgage markets. Some of you are so blind you will never see yet I have heard inventor Bill Gates bashed numerous times by Conservatives.

    • momo

      The redistribution of wealth has, for the last few decades, been redistributed up to the top 1 or 2% of our population and most of the rest of us have been loosing ground all that time. The workers in the middle and lower class have been asked to do more for less while the opposite is true for those at the top.

      Really? According to IRS statistics the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay 2.25 percent of the tax burden in this country. The top 50 percent pay 97.75 percent of the tax burden, with the top 5 percent paying 58.66 percent of the taxes.

      • Chester

        MOMO, better look at see what part of their INCOME that little bit of the national payday those at the bottom are giving up. Typically, a family of four with an income of about twenty-five thousand will spend over five thousand a year in paying taxes of various sorts. That is twenty per cent of their GROSS income, not twenty per cent of their after tax income or adjusted gross income, which is where those at the seventy-five thousand income level play at. Truthfully, for the low income wage earner, more like thirty per cent of his adjusted gross income goes to taxes. True, they aren’t all income taxes, but they are money he does not have to spend on HIS wants or needs.

      • momo

        I’m just speaking to income taxes Chester.

      • Doc Sarvis

        momo, that is a FAR too narrow view of the issue. The other taxes are far more difficult on the poor and middle class than the rich.

      • momo

        @Doc. You started talking about wealth redistribution, that’s carried out by the feds with their safety net programs that are run by federal income taxes. I pointed out, via IRS statistics, who pays those federal income taxes. I’m sorry if that doesn’t meet your PREDEFINED view of what it should be. Other taxes such as sales taxes are administered by states and cities. And yes those taxes hurt the middle class and poor more than the rich because they’re based on how much you can afford to spend. Obviously the rich can afford to spend more. That’s why I told Chester i was only speaking to income taxes.

      • Doc Sarvis

        I see that it is just convienient for your argument to not look at the whole picture.

      • momo

        You started the discussion about wealth distribution, is that not carried out by the federal government through their various social programs? What funds those programs? Is it not federal income taxes? I just pointed out who pays what percentage of federal taxes and you say I have a limited view. Next time you want to discuss the WHOLE picture let me know.

      • Doc Sarvis

        States have social programs too, funded by state collected funds.

      • momo

        The feds fund the vast majority of social programs. That’s what I like about people like you, if you don’t like the facts change the subject.

      • Doc Sarvis

        I see you are grasping at straws.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Doc, she’s not grasping at straws, you are! You liberals seem to be the same, if you got nothin, change the subject. If the liberals really wanted to be “fair” they wouldn’t expect some people to support others. Everyone should be expected to pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, with no deductions. That would be “fair”. The idea that some people should pay more than others is not “fair”. Everyone uses the resources, everyone should pay for them.

      • momo

        It’s ok Nancy, Doc thinks he’s a victim of those evil rich one percenters!

  • Randall Ray

    Corporations (GOP) are wanting to take over the American economy to their personal and selfish advantage. Wake up people of the USA. Look at what they have done in the 8 year Bush (GOP) legacy!

    Randall Ray Elkin, NC

    • momo

      Its Bush and Obama. Until you figure out that the Democrats and Republicans are different sides of the same coin, then they will keep dividing us and using us for their own gain. Ever wonder why nothing ever changes despite all the promises these politicians make while running for office?

      • Robert Smith

        As long as you continue to fall for the notion that government has a place between a woman’s legs and the other red meat issues you will continue to put them in power, rather than folks who actually have the middle class in mind.

        The rights of ALL Americans must be respected. We need second ammendment respect, we need respect for women, we need respect for those who want to choose how they exit, we need respect for those who choose recreational drugs other than alcohol.


      • Robert Smith

        We need to respect those who want to build a family on love, rather than punishing them.


      • Chester

        Thanks, Robert!

      • momo

        Not that I care, but judging by your response you’re on those recreational drugs you talk about Robert.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        You state the truth, momo! It doesn’t matter which party is in power. They are both the same, just a distraction for the people while they rob us blind and enslave us!

  • Karla

    Now they tell us. The wealthy ones want to redistribute MY non-existant “wealth”!!!!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Have you not realized yet that in the pecking order of humans “You” probably have more than someone else and may be forced to share it because they think you have more than them. This mindset can be poor on poor and not necessarily the poor wanting “the wealthy paying their fair share.

  • steve

    if you really want to wary about something , watch your money. the FDIC has only 14 billion dollars left in it’s account and there is 2 trillion dollars in deposits in our banking system. a few more banks go under and your money will have no insurance on it, not that it does now but that should speek volumns about our banks. spain and greece are going under right now and it’s coming here . be on the watch ya’ll

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      They already have plans to limit the amounts on withdrawals. When it becomes necessary, you won’t be able to access your money. It’s already happening in Europe and its coming here!

  • dan

    Bush had guilt from being CEO of CIA-Murder-CORP but I would have put you can’t mention Obama without thinking Hubris

  • miken25

    The guilt is pushed by the right and the left. It’s hard not to feel guilty for one’s wealth when it shall be easier for a camel to pas through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. From the left telling people that the social theory is sovereign.

  • Howard Roark

    The Country is comprised of basically makers and takers. California back in the nineteen fiftys decided that what they were giving a family of four on welfare was not enough so they decided to be kind and increased it to a very comfortable level.the results were predictable. swarms of takers from across the nation moved to California. The California legislature was shocked. they said we tried to be compassionate and they took advantage of us. the dumb asses even paid a commission to study what happened.

    What happened is human nature. human nature screws uo socialism every time. thak god the framers understood this when they wrote our Constitution.they said each state would be like an individual testing ground of ideas. if the ideas worked the other states could, if they wanted to, adopt the idea. they also said that if the state that you were living in became too tyrannical you could vote with your feet and move to a state more in line with your principals.that is what is happening to the states like California and New York today California speciffically continues to hemorage maker citizens and leave the takers behind. what are the takers going to do when there are no more makers to steal from. interesting yes.

    • MW

      @Howard Roark – yep… just one of the reasons we left CA and setup our business in AZ. @Charlie Tall – Applause – I wholeheartedly agree… unfortunately, I think you may be mistaken about how many folks have even heard about (much less read) EITHER the Constitution, the Federalist Papers OR the Anti-Federalist papers… we need to get back to teaching that (retroactively). @Stephan F — agreed. Term limits should be imposed upon ALL public-service positions… The framers never envisioned professional public servants… the intent was for citizens to jump in and help keep the nation moving forward and then go back to thier lives. @Raw/Doc: From any studies I’ve seen, it seems to have more to do with people themselves (and the drives they feed), than it does with how any ‘rules’ are set up. Don’t get me wrong, rules have an impact that provide advantages for those who already ‘have’ (especially govt regulations on industries and professions… these are the biggest stifling influences on new business/wealth growth for those who do not already ‘have’. The studies I’ve read (I’m no expert, btw) sure to seem to indicate that if all wealth were redistributed evenly, we’d have the same distribution we have now, in a relatively short time span. The world is made of people plan/strategize/grow their wealth as well as many others who use in in the short term for pleasure/distraction (plus some who fall in the middle of that range)… the people are the same, though… and will generally continue to save/grow/spend, no matter how you redistribute things. Any scheme that’s based on Robin-Hood economics will never work… It never has, anywhere it’s been tried – and that’s because of human nature.

    • Hey You

      Yes, California was the “golden” state, but when the USA was tilted on end, everything loose skidded into one corner.

      I was born in Calif, but was invited to leave by their “Board of Equalization” (good name), so I did in 1987. Although the environment here is not so pleasant, the financial situation is. Also, there are overseas places which may be even better as the Federals continue to ramp up their version of “equalization”.

      Democracy at work!

    • Maddison908

      Howard, you forgot the amount taken by Washington DC., and those that can are also making their choices with their feet, to places like Australia, New Zealand, and of course the Hollywood troupe are moving to France, Monaco, even Italy, while keeping their citizenship by spending thirty days every three years in the USA, but not paying taxes, because they pay foreign taxes.

  • Charlie Tall

    You all are a bunch of damned fools!

    You talk about how the rich 1% manipulate the government to help them amass more and more wealth.

    You complain about Congressmen voting themselves pay raises, lifetime benefits, and pensions.

    You talk about the Supreme Court rulings making it easier for huge corporations to use the government to help them elect the candidates they want.

    You spout your idiotic theories that the political parties are the same critters, just different names.

    People, what’s the common thread in all of this BS?


    Read the Constitution. Here’s a website for you:

    Find out what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. Here’s a website where you can begin that:

    You have all heard about and read the Federalist Papers, but do you know about the anti-Federalist papers? For your information, the anti-Federalists won the argument, but the Federalists have been working ever since then to warp the Constitution to their own ends…and they’ve pretty much succeeded.

    Of course the rich are going to try to get ahead, and the easiest, most efficient way is to use the government to do their dirty work for them.

    Of course the liberals and progressives are going to lie, cheat, and subvert the Constitution to their advantage, and the easiest way is to use the government to force – yes, force – their perverted beliefs on others.

    A return to Constitutional government is the ONLY way to save America because that means literally playing by the rules.

    It’s obvious that this is not the case now.

    Government of laws, not of men means the same rules apply to everyone.

    It’s obvious that this is not the case now.

    No, what we have, so long as we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, is a situation where, “Some animals are more equal than others.”

    So either fix the situation by reining-in the Federal government, or get used to being screwed.

    • Buster the Anatolian

      Charlie Tall you must be new here. Even though many different points are cussed and discussed here the overall leanings of the concervatives is smaller goverment following the constitution. The overall leanings of the liberals who choose to post here is ever bigger government intruding into our lives more and more and eliminating our freedoms.

    • Sol of Texas

      Charlie –

      I very much agree with your comments and observations about the need to restore the Constitution and enact laws in line with the intentions of most of the Founding Fathers.

  • Stephan F.

    Let’s stick with the rich-mans guilt theme and the Jay Rockefeller example. It’s such a classic story that’s all too common, and shows how dangerous & destructive it is when individuals like this get their hands on the levers of govt power, and, as a consequence, manages to turn the country inside-out.

    As Mr. Ringer mentioned, it’s bad enough that some of those illegitimate wealthy morons run around the country spewing out guilt laden liberal B.S. about how the “well-off” should be giving back their money to society & blah-blah-blah. This does nothing but inspire hatred & envy within the middle & lower classes. But the guilty-feeling-rich don’t care about that; they just want to feel good by appearing to look like someone who cares, and, of course, try to dispel their liberal rich-mans guilt.

    But the real calamities begin when degenerates like rockefeller, teddy kennedy, al franken, et al, armed with this propaganda, pick up this theme and convert it into political action. Now the real tyrannical repression begins.

    Realizing how they can now use it to their political advantage, they begin beating the same drum. They start using their favorite twisted version of the Robin Hood philosophy of stealing from the rich to give to the poor, which, by coincidence, begins capturing the attention of the jealous & envious voting public. They now promise the voters something for nothing and Voila(!), instant votes. And why do they do this? To get re-elected of course. And why do they desire to get re-elected? Because of all the residual freebies that come with the life of a career politician, which are: MONEY & POWER! (Sounds to me like a good argument for terms limits)

    So here you have the way that politicians use envy, covetousness & greed to garner & buy votes, which almost anyone should understand.

    The question then becomes, why do we let them get away with it?

    • Patriot

      Stephan, well said! Could not agree more! Term limits for all career politicians this include the Supreme Court, nobody should be more than 12 years in, then they would need to go back into private life! There should be no laws made that exempt any politicians as well, throw anyone out that has been in longer than 12 years!

      • Stephan F.

        Good point Patriot. Terms limits must also apply to S.C. Justices. Whoever thought a lifetime appointment for them was a good thing sure dropped the ball. BTW, terms limits should also apply to all govt employees, Fed, State, & local. No one should have their entire lives polluted by being involved with the affairs of government. Why, because government is but a necessary EVIL.

        “We are living in a sick society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them.” ~ William L. Comer

    • David169

      You are on target, however the article missed another very important issue. The super rich who espound to wealth re-distribution want to re-distribute everyone’s wealth except their wealth. You don’t see Jay Rockefeller selling his mansion, liquidating his holdings and moving into a 3 bedroom, 2 bath tract home with a 30 year mortgage and giving all his wealth to the poor. I believe the entire motivation is; Now that I’m at the top I will do whatever is possible to keep anyone else from getting here.
      Taking the accumulated wealth from the middle and upper middle class is a plan to impoverish our nation. The middle and upper middle class are the people who can accumulate enough wealth to start a small business. Will the government help you with a Small Business Loan Guarantee, No! The SBA will not talk to you until you can show 3 consecutive profitable years. Most small businesses that succeed (20%) lose money the first year and break even the second year. The third year in business should be profitable; so to get an SBA the small business owner normally is in business for at least 5 years. Getting a loan from a bank is even more difficult most of them want 5 years of profitable operation with the profits increasing annually. Getting a loan directly from a bank or from a bank with a SBA Guarantee is also a double edged sword. The bank will file a UCC-1 and include all your assets and they own you until the loan is re-paid.
      Nero and the super rich have created such a hostil and unstable climate for all business not just small business he has virtually insured our depression level unemployment will continue. This is making the super rich, richer and the rest of us poorer. The redistribution of wealth always is redistributed to the super rich regardless of the propaganda.

  • raw

    Redistribution of wealth never works because the $$ will end up back in the hands of the people who have it now because the bottom 80% don’t know how to take care of it & hold on to it.

    • Doc Sarvis

      Actually, it is because the rules (made by the 1%) are stacked against the 99%.

      • momo

        Spoken like a true loser.

      • Doc Sarvis

        The EASY road is always to call someone a name. It is more difficult to show how I am wrong.

      • TML

        If one supports the redistribution of wealth, does that one not also support the wealth being redistributed to the top 1%?

        I’m thinking about Russia after the revolution of 1917 in which the Communist experiment of collectivism led to the poor farmers entire crops being confiscated by the central government for so-called redistribution, leaving the poor farmers with barely enough to live on after doing all the work.

        In every example in history that I can find, redistribution of wealth… socialist, communist, or collectivist ideas… have led to poverty and destruction of the middle class leaving only the huge gap between the poor and the ‘elites’. It leads to the little worker ants being insignificant in the big scheme, and rewards hard work with rations for the good of the colony.

        So, in supporting redistribution of wealth, does one not also inadvertently support the so-called 1%? I don’t agree that the people named in the article support redistribution out of mere guilt. If they felt guilt, they could give their money away upon their own free will to charities or others in need. I would come closer to thinking they support redistribution because they know that the wealth must first be collected. (Yes, federal income tax, directly related to the IRS, IMF, and Federal Reserve (run by people in the 1%) is a wealth redistribution system.)

        “To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” – Thomas Jefferson

        Do statements such as this support the 1%? I don’t think so, because such philosophy actually makes it possible for anyone, through hard work and free exercise of their industry, capable of becoming wealthy. That was one of the great things about America at it’s inception is the opportunities for ANYONE could become wealthy through philosophies like this. If I became wealthy I certainly wouldn’t want it to be taken from me when others decide that I’ve been too successful.

        I do not agree that corporations should be able allowed to support candidates with corporate money. There should be made checks and balances upon corporations influence on government politics.

        But in speaking of things like the Federal Reserve above… and probably the true problem with this country regarding issues on both sides of the coin…Thomas Jefferson had this to say…

        “”If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”

        Just a few random thoughts… what’s yours?

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “I don’t agree that the people named in the article support redistribution out of mere guilt. If they felt guilt, they could give their money away upon their own free will to charities or others in need.”

        I have no doubt they feel guilt but that guilt stops at the point where they would have to actualy give up something meaningful.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        Oops, I didn’t compleat my thought.

        When they reach the point where they might have to give up something meaningful it becomes others responsibility to give up their wealth to help others while they decide who will give up and who will receive. They through carefully structured loopholes will give up very little while their competitors have to give up much.

    • momo

      The EASY road is to always blame somebody else for your problems, i.e. the 1 percent.

  • 45caliber

    If they feel guilty for having lots of money they didn’t earn, they can certainly give it away to charities. Or send me some. I’ll be glad to help solve their guilt problems. LOL

  • AZ-Ike

    Those who WANT redistribution of wealth are influenced by GAVEAD.
    Those who IMPOSE redistribution of wealth WANT power and control.

    • truesoy


      Do you know what you call re-distribution’ of wealth is the ‘tax’ system from which you too also derive many benefits, like public education so you could read and write, and post your nonsense, here?
      Ps.- even those with no children paid for your ‘public education.


      • AZ-Ike

        The federal Government has absolutely NO AUTHORITY to be involved in public education–or any other type of education. Perhaps YOU are the one who needs to learn to read and comprehend. Then you just may be able to understand the limited responsibilities and AUTHORITY given to Government.

        • truesoy


          Someone sold you the wrong bill of gods.
          Of course the government has to be involve in public education, and it has been so since approx. 1897 when the ‘Office of Education’ that was later to be known and the Department of Education’ was first established. How else would you have, and millions of other people, been able to get an education?
          Even Ron Paul owes his success to the public education system (K-12 grade he attended public schools) Went toprivate college, though part of it was financially subsidized by the federal government. So much for the government out of my life philosophy, right?
          Az-Ike, please understand there is a purpose and a role for government. That is why we pay taxes. Even people without children pay taxes so other people’s children can also get an education.
          However, don’t misconstrue this as an endorsement for never ending taxes as some of you might like to accuse me of, but I do believe that taxes, when properly considered and applied are an integral part of a functioning society.


          • AZ-Ike

            READ the Constitution!. The FEDERAL government has NO authority to involve itself in public education. That was something the individual States controlled until the FEDs decided to use it as another avenue to control the population.

          • truesoy


            …and would you bed so kind to tell me where in the Constitution t says that the Federal Government is not to be involved in public education?


          • AZ-Ike


            If you had every read the Constitution, you would know that Article 1, Section 8 enumerates those very few authorities given to Congress for federal Government. Education isn’t one of them.
            Article 1, Section 9 enumerates the limitations to certain actions Congress may take, and specific actions Congress may not take at all.
            Article 1, Section 10 itemizes the actions that the several States may not engage in, because those actions are reserved to federal Government.
            The Tenth Amendment reserves all Powers to the States or the People that are not specifically delegated to Congress (federal Government,) nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States. Thus, the Constitution gave each State its own sovereign authority, limited only to those few enumerated Powers given to federal Government.

            Because this nation was set up as a self-governing federal Republic by the sovereign Authority of the People, and because the written contract by and for the People (the Constitution) guarantees the same type of government to the States, the People remain the sovereign Authority for all governments in the United States; federal, state, and local. The Constitution

          • truesoy


            I think you overlooked the part that says ‘General Welfare’. Please, read the constitution again, for not only you overlooked “general Welfare’ as being part of Congress powers.
            And do you know what? there is nothing in the Constitution that says otherwise.
            However, I should probably remind you, although I doubt very much that you knew, that in the early years of our nation one of our Founding Fathers and signer of the Constitution, Samuel Adams (he was also a tax collector), was an early proponent to the public education system and was successful in establishing a ‘free’ education (public school) system in Massachusetts.


          • AZ-Ike


            Although Congress and the Courts like to interpret General Welfare as the welfare of the individuals within the country, its meaning in the Constitution is, as it says, the General Welfare of the United States–as a nation. If the Founding Fathers had meant the welfare of the People, they would have said so, as they were very erudite men who knew the meaning of the words they used.

            They wrote a ‘contract’ for the People (read citizens) of the nation that would offer protection to the individual States by banding together and giving up only the very limited responsibilities and authority that was necessary to have a single nation stand up for their protection and to relate to other nations.

            Congress did the same thing with the ‘Commerce Clause’ in which Congress and the Courts have redefined the clause to give government absolute control over all commerce in the U.S. — and now also the authority over individuals who refuse to engage in Commerce. This is such a violation of the Rights and liberty of the sovereign People who never agreed to a controlling Government.

            I can only guess where you received what education you have had, but I know from your comments that you never learned how to think for yourself. Get this straight. This country is a country self-governed by the People who have sovereign Authority. The Constitution is a written contract–written by the People, FOR the People who are its ONLY participants. Again for People, read citizens. Those who are not citizens have NO rights under the Constitution, including NO right to protest the laws of this country. Just because you and other liberals are unable or afraid to live according to your own ability, self-reliance and self-determination, doesn’t mean you, or our treasonous representatives, have the right to take that self-determination and Authority away from us.

            But don’t worry. We WILL get it back!

          • truesoy


            An educated populace makes for the general welfare of the nation, you understand that, don’t you?
            Funny though, Samuel Adams who was one of our Founding Fathers and a signer to the Constitution was a proponent of public education.
            Don’t you find it a bit strange that you have a different interpretation of the Constitution than the man who wrote it?


          • AZ-Ike

            truesoy, (last reply.)

            Asked and answered.

            Repeat. The federal Government has NO constitutional power to involve itself in education. It cannot set or enforce standards. It cannot force its citizens to attend school for any amount of time. Since the federal Government has no authority to involve itself in education, It also cannot tax citizens for educational purposes or use tax revenues for education. The most it can do is encourage its citizens of the importance of education. The government authority to provide public education was given to the States.

            The Constitution mentions ‘People,’ ‘citizens,’ and ‘individuals’ in numerous provisions of the Articles and Amendments. However, in the enumerated powers granted to the federal Government, neither individuals, nor the citizens as a whole, are mentioned. That is why it is entirely reasonable to understand that the limited powers granted to Congress apply to the nation as an entity–not to its citizens as a group or as individuals. It is the ‘General Welfare’ of the nation in its ability to protect the several sovereign States and its relationship to other nations in trade (tariffs) and matters of state. The commerce among the States is to ensure fair treatment between the states–not to tax the products of every business and service–or even to regulate the types of business or services, unless they threaten the safety of the nation, itself. Any powers that involve individual citizens were generally granted to State governments or left with the People.

            Except for the enumerated powers granted to federal Government and the few powers prohibited to State governments, all other powers are reserved to the States and the People.

            READ the Constitution!

          • truesoy


            I guess I missed that part of the Constitution that says only the States can educate….
            …or maybe is only in your Constitution, the one in your imagination.


      • AZ-Ike


        Perhaps YOU are the one who needs to learn to read and comprehend. Then you just may be able to understand the limited responsibilities and LIMITED AUTHORITY given to Government.

        Federal Government does not have unlimited taxing power as recently, and incorrectly, decided by the supreme Court. Congress only has the authority to tax for the common Defense and the general Welfare of the United States–that is the Welfare of the nation, itself, not each individual, a few regulatory authorities also itemized in the Constitution, and the necessary funds for administering the limited responsibilities of Government. Absolutely everything else the federal government collects taxes for is unconstitutional–against the law.

        The federal Government has absolutely NO AUTHORITY to be involved in public education–or any other type of education. In fact, probably 80%-90% of everything the Government does is unconstitutional. I agree with you that collecting taxes for unlawful activities is redistribution of income. But it proves my point. The Government that imposes redistribution on others is only seeking power and control.

        BTW, my parents paid tuition for my elementary education. Although I attended a public high school, I worked my way through College for my degree and have paid plenty in taxes for the public education of others. How did YOU get your education? If my tax dollars paid for it, it was apparently a waste of my money.

        Fortunately my education was before our colleges and universities (and even our elementary, middle, and high schools) have been inundated by liberally biased teachers who hate America and who have provided a generation or two of idiots who can’t live or make a decision unless spoonfed by government.

        I understand how and why this nation was founded and the limitations placed on Government in order to prevent exactly what has and is happening. If you have the capability, try reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution for the United States. If you make a real effort to understand, maybe you won’t continue making such a fool of yourself on these chat sites.

        • truesoy


          Your #1 failure: Pretending that ‘nation’ and ‘people’ are different entities. They are not, for a nation is not vacan real estate. It is the people that makes a nation.
          Secondly, and as I previously have stated, I don’t believe in taxes just for the fun of it. However, I do believe that taxes , within reason, are necessary for the proper functioning of our country and to that effect the wealthy, too, have to pay their fair share.
          Remeber that just defending the interest of the few will not make for the interest of the majority to defend, thereby you should be careful what you wish for, or we will end up the same as our neighbors to the south. They too have a system similar to what you call for.
          I realize that from your vantage point you don’t get to see how it was that you enjoy the things you do, nor how it was made possible, unless you lose them.


  • Jeremy Leochner

    I am an actor by trade and passion. I hope to be very successful some day. I hope to give back to others. The desire to give back to the community or “redistribute the wealth” is not done out of a feeling of guilt or because of demonization or simple pity. Its out of a sense of responsibility. If I am lucky to achieve great wealth and influence in my life I have a responsibility to use that to help others and to try and allow others the chance to be as lucky and happy as me. As the old saying goes “with great power comes great responsibility”. Yes I cannot make someone care or feel such a sense of responsibility. I cannot force them to be charitable. However success does not give someone the right not to share or rather it does not give someone the right to presume that they are better then other people and have no social responsibility. Also on a personal note. I am not going to lie, acting does not require the kind of blood sweat and tears of your average working man. However acting like any art takes years of commitment and learning. It takes physical and emotional conditioning and it does require an investment of time and money if it is to be successful.
    I think one of the most fundamental aspects of the economy is the old adage “give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man how to fish and you can feed him for a lifetime”. There is often a struggle to know how and when to give a man a fish and how to teach him how to fish. When a man is starving he has to have a fish or he will die and he may not have the strength or the time to learn to catch a fish and catch one. Should we simply abandon him once he has the fish we gave him, of course not. We must still teach him how to catch a fish, but be ready in case he needs one. After all we may need him one day.
    Wanting a kinder gentler nation does not mean the country is not kind and gentle. Wanting to be better does not mean you are bad. Compromise is not about putting popularity over morality. As we all learned in kindergarten “you have to play nice with other kids”. You cannot always get everything you want and being willing to meet others half way is not a bad thing. Its okay to be firm on your values, but being wiling to compromise is not a moral or character weakness.
    The same goes for guilt. Guilt is what stops us from doing wrong things. It allows the opportunity to realize we have made a mistake and seek to make amends. Without feelings of guilt we could not feel the pain of others. Specifically when we cause it. Yes such feelings can be incorrect, you can think you have harmed someone when you have not, and such feelings can be played on. However I would not consider a society that feels to much guilt to be the worst thing in the world. After all I think a society where everyone does whatever they wish and no one feels guilty for anything sounds far worse to me. Guilt is all about balancing. Its about knowing when you can do something and when you simply cannot. Its about keeping in perspective what you can do for others and when you simply have to look after yourself. If you try to help everyone you end up helping no one.
    The idea that fuels “redistribution of wealth” is the desire for everyone to have an equal playing field and where being successful does not give someone the right to ignore their responsibility to society. At times such ideals are perverted to create something entirely evil. In the soviet union everything was focused on party and community to the point that the individual was ignored and rendered meaningless. In contrast a society focused on individuals with no regard for society or community leads to “winner take all and survival of the fittest”. In which case individuals are yet again ignored. Extremes in either direction leads to the destruction of equality and liberty. Balance is the key between idealism and pragmatism. Between responsibility and reality.

    • Buddyb

      Liberal claptrap.

      (Definition of claptrap: pretentious nonsense : trash)

      • Jeremy Leochner

        What did I say that was nonsensical or pretentious.

      • Buddyb

        A fair question Jeremy, but do you really want the answer? Ok, here goes.

        Consider, if you please the following:

        “If I am lucky to achieve great wealth and influence in my life I have a responsibility to use that to help others…”

        Correction: No one has ANY responsibility (or obligation) to help anyone with the weath they happen to accumulate, period. No ands, ifs, or buts. Period

        “Yes I cannot make someone care or feel such a sense of responsibility.” – Nor should you.
        “I cannot force them to be charitable.” – Nor should you.

        “However success does not give someone the right not to share or rather it does not give someone the right to presume that they are better then other people and have no social responsibility.” – What can I say. Sorry, but this is pure liberal claptrap!

        “…acting does not require the kind of blood sweat and tears of your average working man.”.
        “…acting like any art takes years of commitment and learning.”
        “ It takes physical and emotional conditioning and it does require an investment of time and money if it is to be successful.”
        These last three statements are so subjective & arbitrary as to be meaningless.

        My main contention is the very first statement. 100% of what of what an individual makes is 100% theirs 100% of the time. It must be this way, otherwise anyone can moralize the taking of any amount of your earnings. And this act is very simply referred to as THEFT.

        And my question to you is: do you believe that theft is ever moral?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Buddy in regards to your points

        1: People look up to successful people as sources of inspiration. Whether its inspiration to go into that successful persons field or into any field the person chooses. Not everyone looks to them but enough do. In the case of an actor it can be young people who look to them. As such whether a successful person wishes it or not there is a responsibility in success. Responsibility is rarely something that is created by choice. Success inspires success. The accumulation of wealth or fame or power encourages others to acquire it as well. As such there is an inherent responsibility to use the power and influence one has claimed in a manner befitting the status of someone with such power and influence. Whether one wishes it or not there is a responsibility that comes with power or wealth or fame or fortune.

        2: How is it liberal claptrap to say that just because someone is more successful then someone else that that dose not automatically make them a better person. Gaining wealth or power or rather being more wealthy or powerful then someone else does not automatically make you better or mean you have less responsibility to care for others or to help the community. I will use me as an example. I and I am sure most people would never suggest that just because I become successful as an actor that that makes me better then other people in other fields or just other people in general.

        3: I will grant they are my opinions. However I still believe it is a valid opinion to say that acting like everything else requires you to put in to get something out and that you get what you pay for.

        4: No I do not believe theft is ever moral. However I hardly consider using some of the money a person makes to maintain the community the person lives in to be theft. Specifically when that person has representatives to act on their individual concerns and where everyone is also paying something to contribute to the community. I would consider the idea of redistribution of wealth being akin to theft to have the same logic that would say that a worker is stealing from their boss every time the boss pays them.

    • AZ-Ike

      Is your ‘sense of responsibility’ from a religious conviction that we each have a responsibility to take care of those who are poor and vulnerable, or from another source? If so, where does it come from? Sometimes a sense of responsibility is born out of guilt—knowing, because you have sufficient resources, you are ‘expected’ to help those who do not. Guilt enters into when you fail to act on your own belief that the expectations of others is correct in governing your life.

      You state you ‘cannot make someone care or feel such a sense of responsibility…or to be charitable’ but, that is exactly what the government does to every one of us when it involves itself in social programs that are funded from tax dollars. There are few individuals who ‘voluntarily’ pay taxes for social programs. Remember, our government was formed to “establish justice (not at all the same as ‘social justice,’) insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare (of the nation–not the individual) and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

      Success may not give someone the right to presume they are better than others, but there is no ‘Natural Right’ that allows someone to share in the wealth/property of others. God’s law directs us to help those who are vulnerable, but a secular law that does so is ‘stealing’ the property of one to give to another. The only ‘social responsibility’ one has is to live in society according to its laws that were agreed to by the ‘consent of the governed.’

      You state ‘it’s okay to be firm on your values, but being willing to compromise is not a moral or character weakness.’ Compromising one’s values IS a moral weakness. Doing the right thing comes from morality without compromise. Guilt only enters into it when one does the wrong thing. Empathy allows us to feel the pain of others, but unless we specifically caused the pain, guilt should have nothing to do with it.

      A society that compromises its values doesn’t help anyone. To use your example, the society ends up feeding the unfortunates fish everyday, refuses to teach them how to fish, and has no expectations that learning to fish (and assume personal responsibility) will solve the problem. Forced redistribution of wealth is no more than stealing from one in order to force dependency on others.

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal,….” There is no equal playing field and there are no equal outcomes. It is up to individuals to navigate the playing field as best as possible; producing an outcome according to each person’s ability, knowledge, ingenuity, efforts, and probably any number of other factors, including luck. If there were equal playing fields and equal outcomes, you would be Tom Cruise or George Clooney by now. Is that what you expect from your ‘equal playing field?’

      I know whom I am answering with this post—after all you are an actor—one of a group that is largely (although, fortunately, not completely) ultra liberal, adamant about using its notoriety to tell others what they should do, and fairly vicious when criticized for it by those who prefer to live without government’s ultra-liberal interference.


    Don’t like working for a living, cannot plan ahead, want to live off someone elses hard work and the tax dime. If you don’t care about your quality of life disappearing the government becoming more tyrannical, not having enough of anything including a place to live, stay warm or cool and brooding about the elites and rich that make life miserable for all, then you are what communism and cult islam seek and if you grow in number you will get all the misery you wish for and more…..go live in another country besides America.

  • s c

    The answer is very simple, Robert. Utopians are obligated to sacrfice their integrity, their ‘brains’ and ignore EVERYTHING that would upset their delicate emotional state. They consistently believe that any and all failed economic systems can be successful here
    because their leaders tell them so. It makes NO difference what their “leaders” want. They will chase it until or unless disaster comes a knockin’ on their front door(s).
    Does it need to be said that a utopian is an overgrown CHILD who never grew up? On a normal planet where common sense, character, results and dependability mattered, utopians would be kept on a short leash where they could be re-educated and perhaps serve a purpose in society. For those who think being a utopian is the only way to “live,” you have forgotten – by choice – that Stalin and Hitler and Mao were first-class examples of UTOPIANS. If you call them ‘successful,’ I suggest that you take more Prozac, ’cause what you’re taking now is not enough. And to think that you somehow managed to survive that damned abortion lottery.

  • truesoy

    Robert Ringer;

    After reading Ringer’s article I started to better understand why conservatives think the way they do, and act the way they think; and that is because of their ingrained believe that a ‘nation’ is a separate entity from the ‘people’.
    The conservative mind is incapable of entertaining the thought that a nation is not vacant real estate, for if it was it wouldn’t be a nation, then.
    This failure of the conservatives to realize that people is what makes a nation, for without people it would just be ‘vacant real estate’, sets the stage for the train wreck we will eventually become.


    • Doc Sarvis

      Insightful observation. Thanks.

  • chris

    EVERYONE should read the 5000 year leap to learn WHY this country is unique. But we had all better wake up fast…


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.