Due to my proclivity for free speech rights, nuance, and my GENUINE disavowal of the two-party system in the US and hatred of the Democratic party and the Clintons, I am frequently followed by Trump supporters and pro- Defend Europe types on Twitter.
I would wonder at myself if I were an innocent bystander to my online mess, but the truth is, I am a leftist. But leftists probably wouldn't believe me, so it's pointless to retain any sort of moniker. ( People probably wouldn't believe I was a feminist either as I am anti-Hillary Clinton, and she's just the EPITOME of feminism).
I'm also a big proponent of natural living. I question GMO's in our foods, vaccines for our general health, fluoride in our water, a whole slew of things people take for granted in our food and water supply (well, in this country: for example, many countries don't even have fluoridated water because they realized IT WAS BAD).
People on the left are into natural living too; saving the environment, driving fuel efficient cars, recycling, eating local and organic. But there seems to be a line drawn as to how far healthy and natural living goes. Leftists despise conspiracy theories. They hate the 911 truth movement, they don't buy into JFK conspiracies (although they promote the history of American involvement in brutal right wing regimes in South America which many tried and true Americans refuse to believe) and they totally "love their science": meaning a lot of them espouse GMO's and vaccines and all sorts of new medical advances that may or may not be in the best interest of US ALL.
Anywhoo, the websites and groups and entities and individuals that tend to question more tend to come attached with right wing mindsets and agendas, like a pro-capitalist agenda. Even though capitalism is the reason pharmaceutical companies and food companies sell us junk and death, many rights wingers would tell you that this is "corporatism", and corporatism is what causes corporations to be exploitative.
Even though someone like Rush Limbaugh ( whom I was listening to one day during a long road trip and there was nothing else to listen to) admitted that the purpose of capitalism ISN'T to to make quality health care or quality products: it's to produce wealth. ( He said something to that effect, I am paraphrasing,)
So you admit it, because you can do nothing BUT admit it. That's the point. To make money. Everything else falls by the way side.
So Natural News is new service I enjoy reading and subscribing to. They do very in depth coverage of health and nutrition issues. They do political commentary as well, from a right wing perspective. They recently published the following article:
Yes. On the surface you might get angry, but it's because you haven't thought about it! (all the way THROUGH, you haven't thought about it RATIONALLY)
These "mechanisms" though they may be factual, are kind of inhumane. And just because they exist, doesn't make them right.
To be honest, this whole article TO ME reads like an argument as to how much capitalism REALLY DOES SUCK.
If you are saying that this is all the result a simple, nonjudgmental, unemotional mechanism, it still doesn't matter. The people suffering in the disaster aren't unemotional, and they want help NOW.
Entrepreneurs will only help each other in times of disaster if the price is right. Okay. That's sad, but it's a result of this mechanism. Even though it is a nonjudgmental mechanism, you are telling us to judge it as great, because otherwise "people will die".
But the people in trouble can't afford the price gouged products,so they now need YOUR DONATIONS...or they'll die.
Poor people at the mercy of rich ones AGAIN
Because it's not a case of "gosh, they sure do jack up the prices at the movie theater concession stand and I REFUSE TO PAY ON PRINCIPLE AND I HAVE A CHOICE, it's more likely a case of "a hundred dollars for a case of water? I guess I'll "die to death from dehydration" because I CAN'T AFFORD IT."
Shucks GOSH THANKS for the donations.
The CHARITY. That you are giving to me TO SUBSIDIZE THESE PRICE GOUGED PRICES.
Sounds like corporate welfare to me.
Except not the kind that comes from the government, but the one that's expected from average people's pockets
Average people, who are constantly treated like they are independently wealthy, living ATM machines, on a par with corporations ( who are also considered people legally, by the way), who can hold their own against a giant corporate entity, and the real villain in all these capitalist sagas.
It's the same for health care. People critical of single payer healthcare complain about "socialism". ( I don't know if socialism is the panacea for our woes, but its average critic doesn't really know anything about it aside from the propaganda they've heard for decades in this country and the absence of historical knowledge of US collusion in the destruction of foreign countries who exercised socialism successfully, countries like Yugoslavia and Libya). Part of our society is already run by it ( semi-successfully, due to corporate collusion and sabotage), that countries with high taxes and socialized healthcare enjoy high standards of living, but hey, let's let corporations bleed us dry and poison us and control us, tax us and enslave us in their own way because it's better that they do it than some phantom government ). They complain about the subsequent expected loss of privacy and government control of our bodies.
We already have no privacy, the government already aids and abets CORPORATE control over our bodies, hell, at least could we not become homeless and bankrupt when the medical bills come due?
Maybe just that? Maybe? Please?
NOPE. If you can't pay your medical bills, after you're down to your last penny, and the insurance has run out, you should expect to enjoy charity.
St. Jude's Charity. St Vincent's Charity. St Monica's charity. St. Lulu's charity. Donate. Donate. Donate.
Isn't this paternalistic? Isn't this anti the individualism so espoused by proponents of capitalism? Now, you should expect to be coddled by society?
And is charity dependable? What if no one donates?
Oh. But everyone will donate. Because people are suckers. And if you don't, you're evil.
But....but...I thought the heartless mechanism makes people care?
Makes people want to provide.
IT'S WAY MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT!!!!
Given that this IS the medium we exist in, given that this is the economic apparatus that exists, and ONLY BECAUSE it is NOT some other way, I have to agree with the author.
The government implementing price controls will make it unappealing for purveyors of goods to supply goods and thus will curtail their availability.
So the price controls would probably hurt people. And so donations ARE necessary. And so this is the world we live in. And trying to alter it in the name of good intentions will probably alter it for the worst.
Simply providing a test case as to why this all sucks in the first place.
Lacy Burton lives in an apolitical beach-like oasis where all opinions have no context and no one is ever offended.