History's great minds who believed socialism was THE WAY...

[outspoken]

I read a lot and it is always surprising to me how some of the greatest minds and molders of history who had great insight into the nature of human nature supported government determining and distributing our rights. Those names include Einstein, Will Rogers, George Orwell, Martin Luther king just to name a few. Does anyone else find this unsettling???

[Flash]

Well I don't think a lot of those people were too brilliant outside of their field. Einstein witnessed the short term effects of Socialism (Germany becoming a poor country to a superpower in less than a decade) and probably thought it was the solution to the world's problems. If he had been alive today I'm sure he would have a totally different opinion.

[t0rnado]

Martin Luther King wasn't a "great mind" and it's a logical fallacy to state that simply because a person was good at one thing means they were right about everything else. It's the argument from authority fallacy.

[Philhelm]

It's irrelevant; they did not ask me my thoughts on the matter. Furthermore, there are plenty of intelligent people that have poor ideas.

[TroySmith]

I don't think they all believed in "pure" socialism so to speak. A lot of them just wanted the "safety net" of government in certain area's. Einstein fled a socialist Germany and Orwell wrote 1984. MLK's legacy I think was co opted by more hardcore socialist.

[FrankRep]

I read a lot and it is always surprising to me how some of the greatest minds and molders of history who had great insight into the nature of human nature supported government determining and distributing our rights. Those names include Einstein, Will Rogers, George Orwell, Martin Luther king just to name a few. Does anyone else find this unsettling???

What about the great minds of the founding fathers?
They rejected Socialism before Socialism had a name.

[Agorism]

I think the economic system was almost a distant secondary concern for some of these people. If you MLK and primarily concerned with civil rights the rest of it would be meaningless and you just side with whichever political party backed your main concern.

Also MLK came out against Vietnam as well, which of course although Dems got us into it, the conservatives were still more hawkish on.

[Chester Copperpot]

Will Rogers? really?

[Dr.3D]

Somebody should make a list of "great minds" who believed Capitalism is THE WAY.

[FrankRep]

Will Rogers? really?

Is he a Communist? I bet he's never read the Communist manifesto.


Communism is like prohibition, it is a good idea, but it won't work.
- Will Rogers

Communism to me is one-third practice and two-thirds explanation.
- Will Rogers


Wikipedia Will Rogers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Rogers)
Political party: Democratic

[heavenlyboy34]

What about the great minds of the founding fathers?
They rejected Socialism before Socialism had a name.

The Hamiltonians didn't. ;)

[bwlibertyman]

I'm not sure I think those people had great minds in and of themselves. Einstein used a bunch of his theory from a prior publication. MLK preached that property rights should not be violated. What's so special about that? It's pretty common sense if you ask me. Orwell was a socialist but apparently he didn't want too much socialism. I think there are much greater minds that favored capitalism. This list could go on for awhile but: Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Ron Paul, Brady Werne, etc.

[FrankRep]

The Hamiltonians didn't. ;)
The Hamiltonians were just power hungry. They wanted to be as powerful as Great Britain.
(Strong Military and a Central Bank)

[roho76]

I don't think they all believed in "pure" socialism so to speak. A lot of them just wanted the "safety net" of government in certain area's. Einstein fled a socialist Germany and Orwell wrote 1984. MLK's legacy I think was co opted by more hardcore socialist.

Orwell believed in happy, happy, sunshine socialism and not the warmongering socialism that he portrayed in 1984 but what he doesn't realized is that happy happy socialism leads to the warmongering socialism because it's well adapted at fitting into the whole money printing economy that socialism requires.

[outspoken]

Will Rogers was a prolific writer in his day and staunch liberal by today's standards. Ironically he was very cynical of politicians as we all should be. We know that most politicians just was power even if they don't readily admit it. Some are even unconscious of their desire for power as exemplified by Obama which makes him especially persuasive. The belief that altruism show occur through the power and violence of the state is an evil that should be stricken from this earth. Citizens are still too comfortable with the false pretense that govt can be empathetic and compassionate. The worship of the state that goes on today is sickening considering what humanity witnessed in the 20th century.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

What about the great minds of the founding fathers?
They rejected Socialism before Socialism had a name.

Which founding fathers? Are we talking about the founders who incorporated the United States of America in the Articles of Confederation or the socialist coo that socialized national defense, justice, commerce, and the general welfare in the Constitution?

[Jay Tea]

I read a lot and it is always surprising to me how some of the greatest minds and molders of history who had great insight into the nature of human nature supported government determining and distributing our rights. Those names include Einstein, Will Rogers, George Orwell, Martin Luther king just to name a few. Does anyone else find this unsettling???

Not really. The most compelling evidence against a state-run economy is that it simply doesn't work. That evidence has been greatly multiplied over the past three to four decades, IMO, although I'm speaking as someone in his 20's, so I can only go by what I can learn from history. Today, we can point to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the vast difference between North and South Korea, the dramatic growth in China since Deng Xiaoping liberalized their economy, and so on. But fifty years ago? While there was still plenty of evidence back then, I think it's become many orders of magnitude greater than it once was as we've watched things play out.

That's why I have so much respect for the intellectual prowess of Mises, Hayek, and others who lived in the beginning/middle of the 20th century. They had to make their cases from a tougher starting point, when so many arguments couldn't be defeated with a simple, "Oh yeah? How did that work out for [fill in the blank]?"

[Tinnuhana]

I agree that socialists like to co-opt movements. They put their buzz words out there and it takes time for some people to figure them out.
I seem to remember AIM (American Indian Movement) using the rhetoric. Has Russell Means written anything about his switch to libertarian?
When things were going so badly in Greece, M. Theodorakis (the guy who composed "Zorba the Greek" music) ended up under house arrest for sympathizing with collectivists. It seems that he wanted freedom for his fellow citizens and the socialists (communists?) were there with the promises and rhetoric.
I see it here. The Okinawans want their island back and the communist and socialist parties are always going to or setting up protests. I think this turns off some people who would otherwise protest because they don't want to be associated with the very obvious, blaring-from- van-speakers message.

[Dreamofunity]

My friend just did a recent blog post about this, given Stephen Hawking's quote:


"I have received excellent medical attention in Britain, and I felt it was important to set the record straight. I believe in universal health care. And I am not afraid to say so."

http://patosullivan.tumblr.com/post/5595361829/why-i-dont-care-about-stephen-hawkings-economic


I replied with Rothbard's quote:

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."


Just because you're smart in the field of physics, does not much you understand human interaction through economics.

[Michael P]

I think human nature is to follow and have rules and structure. I don't think the average human being really wants to be completely free because that would require taking full responsibility over themselves with no safety nets. It might explain why some brilliant people would lean on Socialism.

What sets Libertarians apart? Are we all leaders? It would explain all of the infighting that happens.

[outspoken]

I think human nature is to follow and have rules and structure. I don't think the average human being really wants to be completely free because that would require taking full responsibility over themselves with no safety nets. It might explain why some brilliant people would lean on Socialism.

What sets Libertarians apart? Are we all leaders? It would explain all of the infighting that happens.

True freedom scares the shit out of most people apart from government-authorized liberty because they have not seen with their own two eyes the shit that comes from lack of freedom. Unfortunately, the further down this road we travel as a nation and world the greater we come to having to witness the suffering that results from loss of freedom; that is the hell we will all ultimately pay for dancing with the devil of government. Those most dependent will feel it most acutely.

[MaxPower]

I read a lot and it is always surprising to me how some of the greatest minds and molders of history who had great insight into the nature of human nature supported government determining and distributing our rights. Those names include Einstein, Will Rogers, George Orwell, Martin Luther king just to name a few. Does anyone else find this unsettling???
Against them, we have the likes of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, etc.

[Flash]

Against them, we have the likes of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, etc.


Whoa, I didn't make that post.

[MaxPower]

Which founding fathers? Are we talking about the founders who incorporated the United States of America in the Articles of Confederation or the socialist coo that socialized national defense, justice, commerce, and the general welfare in the Constitution?
Let it be pointed out that the Articles of Confederation also included "general welfare" clauses:

"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."
....
"All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint."

The Constitution was simply echoing the Articles in referencing the "general welfare," which certainly never generated any sweeping power for the Congress in that document; yet another contextual demonstration of the disingenuousness of the "general welfare"-mania which has swept the federal government's law-making activities over the last century. Moreover, while the Constitution strengthened the federal government in some crucial areas, it did also bring with it the Bill of Rights, which contained more explicit provisions in defense of individual liberty than any that were to be found in the Articles.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I read a lot and it is always surprising to me how some of the greatest minds and molders of history who had great insight into the nature of human nature supported government determining and distributing our rights. Those names include Einstein, Will Rogers, George Orwell, Martin Luther king just to name a few. Does anyone else find this unsettling???

Orwell wasn't a Socialist -- he was an Anarcho-Syndicalist. I'd imagine if he were alive today he would most likely be an anarchist without adjective.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Let it be pointed out that the Articles of Confederation also included "general welfare" clauses:

"The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."
....
"All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint."

The Constitution was simply echoing the Articles in referencing the "general welfare," which certainly never generated any sweeping power for the Congress in that document; yet another contextual demonstration of the disingenuousness of the "general welfare"-mania which has swept the federal government's law-making activities over the last century. Moreover, while the Constitution strengthened the federal government in some crucial areas, it did also bring with it the Bill of Rights, which contained more explicit provisions in defense of individual liberty than any that were to be found in the Articles.

They were unneeded in the Articles because the power of Congress Assembled was miniscule. There were all ready Bills of Rights in the State Constitutions (and more to be adapted). The Constitution was a huge leap in the centralization of power. There could be made no argument that in the AoC there was no power of taxation, no authority to raise a standing army, nor any hint of the authority of a Central Bank. For these reasons Hamilton and company objected vehemently. Federalist Papers were nothing more than propaganda of the day.

[anaconda]

I read a lot and it is always surprising to me how some of the greatest minds and molders of history who had great insight into the nature of human nature supported government determining and distributing our rights. Those names include Einstein, Will Rogers, George Orwell, Martin Luther king just to name a few. Does anyone else find this unsettling???

Economics is another can of worms. Just because you are good on physics doesn't mean that economics or political economy becomes intuitive or self evident. I doubt that Einstein could derive the demand curve for labor off the top of his head. There are examples of people trained in economics and physics and/or math. Paul Romer, for example, earned a B.S. in physics at the University of Chicago before getting a Ph.D in Economics at the same school. Economics and Physics both reveal solutions that are counter intuitive and require some study to realize this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Romer

Interesting short talk:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSHBma0Ithk