e0b76fcfaf35…

According to R. J. Rummel, the world’s expert on democide (which refers to governments intentionally killing people), during the 20th century, four communist dictatorships killed more than 146,079 million people (Chinese communists–80,170,000; Soviet communists–61,911,000; Cambodian communists–2,035,000; and the North Korean communists–1,663,000) (See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM.)

I think a good note on that first number is that in most countries, the decimal point and comma are switched, meaning that first number is 146.079 million, not 146,079 million (146 billion, 79 million), which would be more people than have ever existed on the face of planet earth.

From what I have seen, the right has uncovered numerous facts suggesting the Frost family is neither poor, nor victims–being mainly responsible for their own plight. Now since the left advanced this case, it is their obligation to prove it. Yet all I have seen from them are accusations that the right’s reported facts are lies (without any evidence to back-up these claims), assertions of leftist moral superiority, and moral outrage that their word has been challenged.

Well, let’s take a broader look about the morality (and consequences) of leftist and rightist orientations.

According to R. J. Rummel, the world’s expert on democide (which refers to governments intentionally killing people), during the 20th century, four communist dictatorships killed more than 146,079 million people (Chinese communists–80,170,000; Soviet communists–61,911,000; Cambodian communists–2,035,000; and the North Korean communists–1,663,000) (See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM.)

On the other hand, according to a rank ordering of nations’ economic freedom (compiled by the Fraser Institute of Canada in conjunction with the Institute of Economic Affairs in the UK), there is a strong positive correlation between economic freedom, economic progress, and living standards. (See http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=6075)

Here are some of the key findings:

• Nations in the top quartile in economic freedom have an average per capita GDP of US$24,402, compared with US$2,998 for those nations in the bottom quartile.
• The top quartile has an average per capita economic growth rate of 2.1 percent, compared with negative 0.2 percent for the bottom quartile.
• In nations of the top quartile, the average income of the poorest 10 percent of the population is US$6,519, compared with $826 for those in the bottom quartile.
• Unemployment in the top quartile averages 5.9 percent, compared with 12.7 percent in the bottom quartile.
• Life expectancy is 77.8 years in the top quartile compared with 55.0 years in the bottom quartile.
• In nations of the top quartile, only 0.3 percent of children are in the labour force, compared with 19.3 percent in the least economically free nations.
• Nations in the top quartile of economic freedom have an average score of 1.8 for political rights on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 marks the highest level of freedom, and 7 the lowest level. The bottom quartile has an average score of 4.6.

(For additional information see “Not Rocket Science,” by Richard W. Rahn in The Washington Times, January 18, 2006.)

In the USA, specifically, our latest census figures indicate that average poor people are doing surprisingly well. Here is a summary of some of the findings (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=):

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Another summary by Mark Turnbull (The Christian Science Monitor) presents additional information:

The Census report also compares, from 1992 through 1998, people’s perceptions of whether basic needs were being met. More than 92% of Americans below the poverty line said they had enough food, as of 1998. Some 86% said they had no unmet need for a doctor, 89% had no roof leaks, and 87% said they had no unpaid rent or mortgage.

(For additional statistics see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090101409.html.)

Furthermore, Walter Williams reports mobility across economic quintiles is high
(http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/01/04/180969.html):

The authors [Cox and Alms] analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991. Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

What conclusions can we draw from this data? Thomas Sowell says it best (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_10_06_TS.html):

When it comes to lifting people out of poverty, redistribution of income and wealth has a much poorer and more spotty track record than the creation of wealth. In some places, such as Zimbabwe today, attempts at a redistribution of wealth have turned out to be a redistribution of poverty.
While the creation of wealth may be more effective for enabling millions of people to rise out of poverty, it provides no special role for the political left, no puffed up importance, no moral superiority, no power for them to wield over others. Redistribution is clearly better for the left.

In summary, then, the left claims to be all about moral superiority and helping people. But what their policies actually result in are wrecked economies, impoverished billions, and murdered millions. On the other hand, the right’s capitalist philosophy is one of freedom, responsibility, and self-determination. And overwhelming evidence demonstrates it really does create wealth, encourage mobility, and help the poor.

So when it comes to leftist and rightist beliefs, who is correct and who is wrong? Who is moral and who is not? I think the answer is obvious, but I leave it up to you.

that they try very hard not to cross

Obviously not trying hard enough.

“The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things-war and hunger and date rape-liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. It’s a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.”

P. J. O’Rourke, Give War a Chance, Introduction (1992).

Starting with Robert Bork, continuing with Clarence Thomas, and into today, DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS have destoyed comity in the United States. THEY BROKE IT. And they continue to abuse the very idea of honest debate in America. Why, because as my slogan for MoveOn.org reads: Because they’re “Brownshirts in Action.”

That’s why they savaged McCollough, and then trot out Frost, hide behind him and demand that their POLICIES may not be criticized because their MASCOT is beyond reproach.

If this is the left, that I wish to have as little contact, compromise, or congress with them as possible. How can you possibly trust someone who acts like this?

The are vile, and stupid.

I say let them keep on keeping on their stupid vileness. Christy Smith is really a victim of Hamsher. Hamsher would drop her in a hot second if Hamsher were taken seriously. Oh, it will come in small doses – can’t keep up the website, need more fundraising, I’m the one propping it up and paying for it…and so on. There have been episodes like this…

Exactly

The difference between the far right wing and the far left wing: the far right will do anything — anything — so long as the ends justifies the means. The far left folks have ethical boundaries that they try very hard not to cross: things like attacking other people’s minor children is bad form . .

Yeah, Lefties don’t insult other people’s minor children, they advocate for the right to slaughter thousands of them on a daily basis.

Ethical boundaries. HA! These are the same dregs who write “traitor” on the outside of recruiter’s offices. These are the people who show no respect for any other human being. These are the people who hear of executions of innocent human beings and call them “Littke Eichmans” or say “screw them.”

They are contemptible.

How can anyone who wants to dismantle and destroy the greatest medical ever known to the human race,by doing so they destroy our very lives thru lack of medical care, how can they claim to have ethics! Hell they are mass murderers and use a unfortunate child to cause their murder. Why are they willing to commit murder of untold numbers? personal irresponsibility

see-dubya on October 13, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Excellent example.

“When the State wishes to lie most outrageously, it always holds up a child.”

In a fashion reminiscent of Saddam Hussein.