Neo-cons and Karl Marx

The economic model put forth by Karl Marx can never become reality, despite the utopian view it offers in which there is no suffering, greed, inequality or "middle" class. Human nature stands in direct opposition to the core concepts of wealth redistribution.

Some men are more willing to work than others, some more capable, some more intillegent. Thus, there can never be "equality" of wealth unless the producers who are more capable than others are punished for their achievement while those less capable are rewarded more then they are able to earn on their own.

Similarly, the "neo-con" model of spreading freedom and democracy around the world is also a fantasy which will never be achieved. Human nature being what it is, there will always be strong people trying to take advantage of weak people. One after another, as sure as the sun will rise, men will rise in search of domination over other people.

Are we to believe that this inherent human tendency can be overcome by the installation of democratic governments who believe in the participation of the governed via the voting booth?

Am I to accept the notion that we can reach a point where every nation on earth will be simultaneously run by men who peacefully coexist with everyone else?

I say it is impossible, given the fact that our nation was the first to attempt such a system, and even that effort never really succeeded. Do not be fooled, America is not governed with the consent of the governed, our elections are not free and fair, the people we elect do not operate according to the Constitution and the will of the People.

Inevitably, even in these great United States, the powerful seek power over the weak, the poor, the defenseless, and those unable to have their voices heard. WACO, Ruby Ridge, Social Security, government charity for tsunami relief, the income tax, eminent domain abuses, gun ownership restrictions, and the PATRIOT Act are just a few examples how governments inevitably and predictably abuse their people.

It is absolute hypocrisy to suggest that the United States government will ever be able to achieve world wide "peace", especially given the fact that America is at a point of division greater than any point in our history, and that freedom and liberty have failed here. Surely what cannot be achieved on a permanent basis within this country is utterly unattainable on a global scale.

Not surprisingly to me, Rush is claiming the goal of the United Nations is supposed to be to promote global freedom and to advance the cause of democracy to all people and governments. Of course, I understand that the UN has devolved into nothing more than an agent designed to weaken the US and to transfer our wealth to their bureaucrats and leaders of 3rd world governments.

So let me get this straight, according to Rush's statement. Anyone who believes in Bush's goal of "worldwide democracy" should support the United Nations and should work to revive its original goals?