Commies are funny! Well, until they start killing, stealing and raping. But until that they're Hi-Larious.He challenged my assertion that they're communists, so I promised to lay out my reasons for calling them that. (The crimes of rape, murder and theft that occurred in the squalor of the occupy encampments speak for themselves.)
Commies believe in two things:
- Taking stuff from people who have it, and giving it to themselves, their friends, and their definition of "who needs/deserves it" (according to their definition) and,
- A totalitarian state that can enforce (1) as well as whatever else they want to force people to do.
Items 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 are clearly demands for socialism. They include full public health care, education through university, guaranteed wages and housing, and demand to "make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a reality" (which is a self-contradictory socialist document deserving the greatest derision possible in a lengthier essay).
All of those demands require taking things by force from one group and giving it to another. It is distribution of scarce resources by government dictate, which is what socialism is. It has to lead to shortages, just as the same ideas have everywhere they've been implemented.
Actually implementing the above would require a huge government, but it gets even worse with the first item:
Corporatism – Firmly establish that money is not speech, corporations are not people and only people have Constitutional rights. End corporate influence over the political process. End corporate welfare that enriches the few and instead treat government investment as something that all profit from, ensure corporations pay their fair share by ending corporate loopholes and tax subsidies and put in place a global tax so that off-shoring of money does not avoid taxes....Obviously this is inspired by the lefty outrage against the Citizens United SCOTUS decision. However, if I form a company with a few friends, I lose my right to speech? That is, I can't speak on behalf of my company? Put bluntly, Wal-Mart can't defend itself against smears by Obama and the anti-capitalist left? But the New York Times can? Lunacy. Either a corporation (a body of people) can speak as a unit, or there should be no free press either. Else Wal-Mart should bankroll their own press and use that to defend themselves. At that point, the left will insist that papers can't be owned by corporations. And then the government decides who is and who isn't valid media and thus is allowed free speech. Tyranny anyone?
Of course, item 13 goes right on to that:
Media – End the concentration of media by a small number of corporations. Democratize the media by recognizing that the airwaves and the internet are public goods and recognize independent and citizen’s media as legitimate media outlets. Require that media be accurate and accountable to the people and that the internet be accessible to all people, respect people’s privacy and promote the sharing of information."Require that media be accurate and accountable" means government imprimatur required to have speech. This is oppression. This is and has always been the role only of tyrants.
As a bonus, they also demand we return to the middle ages, with item 11:
Environment – Adopt policies which effectively create a carbon-free and nuclear free energy economy and that respect the rights of nature
Yah, that'll work. We'll need to eliminate 99% of our energy usage (actually a bit more--wind and solar provide less than 1% of our energy needs). You want to live like darkest Africa? Support these guys.