Who Do They Think Will Sign Their Paychecks?

by lewwaters

The older I am, the more amazed I become at hearing the same old cockamamie crap coming out of some people’s mouths. Even after being seen a total failure every where it was ever tried, there are still those who think they are downtrodden and mistreated by having to work for an employer in order to earn a paycheck.

Socialists are still pushing their idiocy in universities, unions and wherever they can attract a person to listen to their hyperbole.

Rob Lewis, the young socialist featured in the following video is a prime example as he complains about his employer and having to adhere to an employer’s instructions on how he desires his business to be run.

Aaron Kennedy, the founder of Noodles, where Rob Lewis works “scraped some money together from his friends and family and after maxing out eight credit cards, opened the first Noodles in his basement. He then put together a team with whom he’d build and operate 100 Noodles branches all on their own. It has grown into a $75 million franchise with 240 locations in 18 different states, providing jobs to over 3,000 employees just like Rob. This is what the American Dream looks like under capitalism.”

Lewis, joining the public union protests in Madison, Wisconsin, even though not in any of the unions, feels he is entitled to what Kennedy built with his hard work and vision just because he wants more. As shown at Brietbart’s Big Government, even though Kennedy put the company together and expanded all on his own, with the help of other investors, “Lewis and his fellow Noodles employees, whom he describes as ‘the workers,’ would act as a virtual board of directors, while the owner, the ‘capitalist’ would be kindly offered a seat at the table, but would be forced to accept their terms and sit down as a ‘co-equal,’ or be simply kicked to the curb.”

That is the socialist dream.

America was almost a socialist utopia as the earliest Pilgrims tried a collectivist system first that failed miserably. As can be expected, even though recorded in history, it is being hailed “a myth” by none other than the socialists themselves and supporters.

Myth or not, the story points out the basic flaw of socialism and Karl Marx’s oft repeated slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” It is contrary to the basic inherent nature of mankind, to build a better mousetrap, to improve your state in life or to succeed. Why bother if all the fruits of your labor go to those who do not contribute to your effort?

In the case of Aaron Kennedy, he started alone and by borrowing, which had to be paid back with interest or dividends, built his company from there. Why should he have that taken from him by the likes of Rob Lewis who came along long after seeking a paycheck and who now thinks he is entitled to an equal share?

I couldn’t help but note the little capitalist gesture at the end of the video, as a magazine is exchanged for cash. Shouldn’t a true socialist be willing to just hand it over without expecting payment? Are they practicing “no profit for thee, but profit for me?”

Just one final question for the young socialist Rob Lewis. Should you succeed in setting up this socialist utopia you desire, once you remove the driving force from behind the business and his rules and regulations that made the business expand and succeed by giving customers what they desired, not what they are told they will receive, who do you expect will sign your paycheck?

23 Responses to “Who Do They Think Will Sign Their Paychecks?”

  1. you have been horribly misinformed on “socialism”

    Like

  2. Well, feel free to “set us straight.”

    Like

  3. The guy’s a Marxist – ignore him but beware of his ilk. I’ll reiterate – I am a hard Liberal but everything that jerk says is nonsense. Liberty is guaranteed in the Constitution so that kind of rhetoric will go nowhere. If you paint Liberals with the Marxist brush then you lose the opportunity to discuss and compromise.

    I agree, there are no fruitful debates with Marxists. Unfortunately, envy breeds them.

    Like

  4. Yes, he is obviously a Marxist. But, do they not also self identify as socialists?

    I am not who is saying he is a socialist, he says he is and the publication he sold (for profit I’m sure) identifies itself as the International Socialist Review.

    And yes, it is fruitless to debate people like Lewis, so we just expose them.

    Like

  5. Socialism, boiled down to it’s barest essential, is the ideology of group over individual. Other countries do not have a guarantee of liberty (individual over group), so socialism is not clearly discouraged in their courts. In America it takes a lot to subsume individual rights for the good of the group, so our socialism is watered down and sometimes poorly implemented, such as social security and Obamacare. The reality is that we are a liberty-based country that argues about what we want to socialize – Liberals more than Conservatives.

    Marxism is envious, self-righteousness that masquerades as socialism.

    Like

  6. This is part of the fine point I mentioned before, Martin. There isn’t a whole lot of distinct difference and with them identifying themselves as socialists, what are we conservatives to think?

    Are we top run up and tell them they are wrong, they are not what they claim?

    The argument is actually with them, not us.

    Like

  7. I agree it is sometimes difficult to tell – the world “socialist” was used for the Nazi Party (National Socialist) and Communist Russia (United Soviet Socialist Republic), but the word “conservative” was used by apartied South Africa (National Conservative Party) and Canada has the Progressive-Conservative Party… What’s a person to think?

    Like

  8. I agree, but where is “conservative” actively pushing for oppression today?

    I see self-described “socialists” pushing to take over businesses and reap in the rewards while contributing none of the risk.

    You even have the president making statement such as “sometimes, I think you’ve made enouigh money.”

    Those aren’t in the past, but the here and now.

    Like

  9. See, Lew, we’re having a reasonable discussion…

    Was that guy calling himself a Democrat? Let’s not focus on the fringers.

    Obama can say “…enough money,” and not be implying he’s going to stop people from making it. The last thing we want is an aristocracy – Americans want a classless society. It makes it really difficult when the income gap, especially across generations, gets gigantic.

    Like

  10. Martin, if these “fringers’ are actively involved with union leadership or any active Democrats currently serving, they might not be quite as “fringe’ as thought.

    But, you bring up a curious point. Just what did Obama mean when he said “I think you’ve made enough money?”

    Why would he, after being elected, say such a thing in the setting he said it and it not mean something?

    Like

  11. I agree that the President cannot afford to be ambiguous.

    Like

  12. They set themselves up and confuse people when they are.

    And, given some of the policies Obama advocates, the words appear to have less ambiguity than first suspected.

    At least, to conservatives.

    Like

  13. the ‘capitalist’ would be kindly offered a seat at the table, but would be forced to accept their terms and sit down as a ‘co-equal,’ or be simply kicked to the curb.”

    That is the socialist dream.
    JK: Just one little problem: that twit and his socialist buddies don’t have a clue how to run a business. They would take it over and destroy it.

    Like Stalin took a county that fed all of Europe and turned it into one that could not feed itself and let million starve.

    Or Mao who had one grand plan after another that got millions killed.

    Or Castro. Or Pol Pot.

    Would that idiot please point me to one socialist workers paradise that actually works. No, North Korea does not work. Cuba does not work. OK, so everyone is equal (except the ruling class) bu they are equally in poverty.

    Let me ask our indigenous socialists just one question: at what body count would you admit that your crackpot idea does not work? 1 million dead Americans? 10 Million dead Americans? 100 Million dead Americans? (We have already seen thousands of foreigners dead from the crackpot global warming belief as American politicians convert food into fuel, while refusing to use readily available oil.)

    Thanks
    JK

    Like

  14. All of this is taking our eye off the ball. There aren’t enough Marxist nut-jobs in the U.S. to worry about. As soon as people get a wiff, Dem or Republican, almost everyone walks away. And just because we have a handful of socialist institutions (military, social security, safety, roads, maybe healthcare), doesn’t mean we’re socialist or even very far down that path. Socialism fails because there’s no market pressures, and the market fails when it is a monopoly, unprofitable, or exploitable. Balancing between the two is what we’re doing now.

    I’m MUCH more concerned with the stratification of wealth that’s occuring. Liberals have let the phrase “redistribution of wealth” become dirty. I don’t care how the redistribution occurs – but it must. (I’m not talking about the $250K/year folks – that’s peanuts.)

    Like

  15. Martin, if you truly believe in “redistribute the wealth,” then you must begin by giving your own, whatever amount it is. You cannot just reditribute that of some and not all.

    This is the problem with “class envy.” It becomes take his wealth, but leave mine alone.

    Wealth is already redistributed in stocks, interest and paychecks.

    I learned a long time ago, I’m much better off by not worrying what someone else has and focus on myself and family.

    Maybe that is why, when Mose came down off of the mountain with the tablets, one inscription on them was “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

    Perhaps it is not so much a religious admonition as it is an admonition for our own well-being.

    When the mega-millionaires in office calling for the redistributon of wealth begin redistributing their own, maybe I’ll pay them more mind.

    Like

  16. The mega-wealthy do indeed have an army to defend them. Many serfs in Europe accepted their place, carried their scythes to battle for their lord, and gave their life for the manor-house. A quarter of Revolutionary-era Americans supported England in the war. The word “conservative” is aptly defined as “maintaining the status quo.”

    This is the real difference between Liberal and Conservative – not some Marxist claptrap.

    Like

  17. That’s your view, Martin and you are certainly entitled to it. But, it isn’t necessarily so. Even conservatives understand growth and changes must come, we just often disagree on where.

    But, if you wish to see a prime example of what I meant on redistributing the wealth, look no further than Arrianna Huffington and her sweetheart $315 Million received for Huffington Post and never paying contributors a dime.

    Huffington Post contributors go on strike, propose collective bargaining

    That’s just one. We also have Michael Moore always whining about other people being rich, John ‘F’in Kerry contracting a yacht built outside of the country and then mooring it out of state where taxes are cheaper, Kennedy’s blocking wind farms in Nantucket Bay, Dianne Feinstein blocking solar panels in her district, Pelosi exmpting her husband’s company from minimum wage increases and even the bigotry of Wahington State Democrats in Olympia ignoring calls for ending all discrimination in civil marriage.

    You say we conservatives believe in “maintaining the status quo,” but from where I sit, it looks more like all too many top liberals believe in practicing double standards.

    Isn’t that practice of a double standard really “maintaining the status quo?”

    Like

  18. I won’t defend double-standards. Dems seem to exercise more than their fair share of hypocrisy.

    I’m big on spreading opportunity around at death. I’d make the super-wealthy create as many millionaires as possible from their estate, (nothing back to the Government). Most of those new millionaires will blow the money (stimulating the economy) but a couple will make it all back again.

    There, that’s my solution, just so you don’t think I’m all talk.

    Like

  19. Martin, I appreciate that you see and acknowledge the double standard and hypocrisy of some.

    Interesting solution you propose, though. You are right, many would just blow the money and end up worse off or looking for more, which would create another problem.

    Of those that did make it back, would it be worth it if it were to be taken away from them to spread out to others, though? What would be the sense of striving to increase your wealth, if it is only to be taken away and given to others who did nothing to earn it?

    That’s my problem with it, too many do not appreciate what they do not work to attain. And those that would work hard for it will just lose it through no fault of their own, other than they succeeded.

    Wealth continues being created by people like Aaron Kennedy in this post due to hard work, risk taking and providing what someone wants.

    Equal opportunity to work for what you wish is what I believe in. That opportunity hasn’t always been there for all, but it is more today than before.

    Like

  20. Lew, I don’t disagree with anything you said in that last post.

    I will comment that once a person finds their way to the hereafter, they probably have no cares for the fortune they left behind on Earth. Also, heirs are no better qualified to babysit their parent’s money than random people – maybe less so… But as an engineer, I’m trying to solve a problem (vast generational accumulations of wealth) rather than make moral or value judgments.

    Anyway, I was just trying to put a real debate topic out there for us to chew on, rather than allow that Marxist red-herring to stifle communication.

    Signing off.
    MD

    Like

  21. Martin, I’m really not arguing as much as pointing out another side.

    I agree, heirs often squander inheritances, which fits in with what I said about not working for something and earning it and appreciating it. We are actually on the same page there, it seems.

    As an old mechanic, I too try to solve and resolve things. As a Libra, I strive for balance, rarely achieving it.

    But, I disagree with Marxist red-herring. While you do not embrace it or approve of it, some at the top of the party leadership appear to and many throughout all levels of the left also seem to.

    Honestly, it keeps me very confused.

    Like

  22. His favorite hobby, would be to criticize and pass judgments on everything.
    Characters, whether it’s an actor playing a task or a cartoon character, adds a new dimension to your poster printing. The members of the family is manufactured of Homer Simpson, that is the man of the home, he is an overweight safety inspector on the cities strength plant, he often offers bad suggestions.

    Like

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: