The infantile and greedy socialists say "I'm here. I'm breathing. provide me". Or "provide FOR me".
Fascism in a nutshell consists of wealthy "job creators" telling almost the same thing to workers. What these "fascists" say is "I'm here and breathing and special due to being wealthy. You worthless workers need to toil for very low wages and let me keep most of the fruits of your labor".
Now, the question we have to ask ourselves is: which do we prefer? What system should we choose for running this great country? Obviously rational long term self interest - which isn't what many think it is - tells us that the answer is the later and not the former.
Why? Well, just look at a graph of the standard of living since the birth of Christ. As you can plainly see (if you Googled for and found this graph), it was essentially a flat line until the 1800s. And while we can obviously never know with certitude what the cause of this upturn was, it does seem rather convincing that it started to mushroom at the very same time that free markets, economic liberalization, free trade, the industrial revolution, and liberty also developed.
I mean, I know that this is a difficult thing for the socialists to accept but those looking at this graph can PLAINLY see that workers toiling for the benefit of our wealthy overlords benefits us all.
Some of us more than others, but in the end we all benefit. If you believe this BS about free markets, economic liberalization and free trade being solely responsible for the standard of living going up, that is. Which Lying Lester does. Or SAYS he does.
That would be as opposed to the truth about why the standard of living has gone up, which would be the technical advancements of generation upon generation (the industrial revolution being one such advance). I mean, as the collective knowledge of mankind increases over time, how could the standard of living NOT go up?
Even if the wealthy are siphoning off a large portion of the fruits of the common man's labor. The wealthy are generous enough to leave some crumbs for everyone else. And, of course, as the wealthy get richer and richer, the crumbs (proportionally) must also increase. At least for some. If not the rAbble might catch on. And in dEmocracies such as ours, that could be a problem.
Sure, free markets, economic liberalization and free trade *do* have something to do with the standard of living increasing. Although if the system wasn't being exploited by the wealthy to benefit themselves disproportionately, the standard of living for the average Joe could be a lot higher. Even for the third world wage slaves that often die due to poor working and living conditions.
But if not for their sacrifice - even if it is not a voluntary one, but one we must coerce them into (work for low wages or starve to death) - the wealthy would be slightly less wealthy. And nobody wants that, do they? I know I surely do not. What a horrible world this would be if The Rich and powerful could not exploit the Poor and powerless.
Lying Lester knows that it is not a world he would want to live in. But praise Ayn Rand that such a world existing is all but impossible... thanks in part to stooges like myself. And my buddy Will Hart, for whom I thank for his contribution to the authorship of this commentary.