Political Fallacy of Marx

Political philosopher Karl Marx advocated for a radical world change. This world change would help bring about the dissolution of all forms of governments, with the eventual goal of universal world peace and happiness. This revolution would start by a violent overthrow of the oppressive overseers; the revolt would grow to a global event. The deluge of outrage would bring justice and peace to the land, with all forms of government becoming extinct.

This concept is grossly mistaken. Violent revolutions will always occur this side of the Armageddon; however, they will not dissolve when everyone is content. If the elites should somehow be vanquished, then there will be a power vacuum that will be filled by the leader. This is similar to the story of the Soviet Revolution as characterized in Animal Farm. There will always be some sort of elite group that will replace the original oppressive group.

There will never be a date that the oppressed will live in peace. As portrayed in Animal Farm, the leaders (i.e. the pigs) will lead the masses into domination. There will never be a utopia that Marx envisions. There will never be a withering away of the state! We were made for society. Man is a social creature and we need each other tremendously. That is why society formed thousands of years ago, joining people together because of commonalities. We were meant to be together within the confines of the community.

Religious Litmus Tests

There has been a lot of talk in regards to faith and politics. Republican candidate Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and there are those who will not vote for him because of his religion. Personally, I would not mind voting for the man, since his views align with mine in many instances. However, if someone did not want to vote for him solely based upon their faith is alright in my opinion.

The U.S. Constitution has barred a religious litmus test for candidates, seeking to promote a diverse political realm. But doesn't that test apply to the Federal Govt? Since when does the Constitution apply to the people and not to the government. That document was created to restrain the government, not to restrain the people!

I propose a question to people like Hugh Hewitt and other conservative Romneyites: would you support a candidate who believes in sharia law and instituting it upon America? Why would you treat them differently? It's ridiculous to hear people call other bigots because of this reason. Anyone has the freedom to vote against someone because of the way they part their hair! We the People have the right to say no to a candidate and impose litmus tests. It is ridiculous to be scolded by commentators because a person thinks differently.

I like Romney, and I appreciate his views and charisma (despite disagreeing with him theologically). Other people cannot jump over the hurdle of his religion; however, I do not think that it is intelligently honest to say people need to remove their faith from politics. To have conservative commentators say that is both hypocritical and unconstitutional.