Fox's Sean Hannity vs. the DSA-backed Congressional Candidate

Share

Leave a comment

Share JOHN SPRITZLER'S Substack

Please restack this if you want more people to see it.

This wonderful egalitarian man, like billions of egalitarians, would, by expressing egalitarian aims, destroy Fox’s Sean Hannity in a debate. Go here to see 500+ photos of more wonderful egalitarians in my postal zip code.

Here (and shown below) is a video of Fox’s Sean Hannity being able to make a DSA-supported Congressional candidate seem tongue-tied and stupid by taking advantage of the fact that the DSA does not advocate the egalitarian principle, “From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need.” At the very end, Hannity attacks “From each according to ability, to each according to need” as if this were what the DSA advocates (it does not) by saying that it is Marxism. The DSA politician apparently does not know that Karl Marx explicitly (and wrongly!) OPPOSED implementing “From each according…etc.” until, to use his words, “a higher phase of communist society” (which in the Marxist framework comes after the socialist phase), i.e. until the VERY FAR future.

All of Hannity’s gotcha “How much money should a person be allowed to have?” questions are IRRELEVANT and would be easily shown to be irrelevant if he were confronting an advocate of “From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need,” because this economic principle is not based on using money at all. Here’s why not.

The “From each according, … etc.” economic principle is not based on exchanging equal value for equal value, which is what buying and selling is all about and for which money is useful. There is, however, no buying and selling in an egalitarian economy (as described here and in more detail here) and hence no need for money at all. Asking an egalitarian how much money a person should be allowed to have is like asking a fish how many bicycles a fish should be allowed to have.

Hannity argued that billionaires are very smart and do good things with their money and so we should let them keep all their billions of dollars. An egalitarian debating Hannity would respond that there is still meritocracy in an egalitarian society so that people with extraordinary talents would still be able to use their talents to do great things (as discussed here), but there would not be some rich and some poor. People who have what they need or reasonably desire and who have extraordinary talent will most likely want to use their talent to do wonderful things (which they can do in an egalitarian society) without needing the extra motivation of getting extremely rich. If their only motivation were to get extremely rich, then probably their goal would not really be such a wonderful thing. Read here about what motivates people to work in an egalitarian society.

Furthermore, an egalitarian debating Hannity would explain that in order for the rich to maintain their great wealth and privilege and power they MUST treat the have-nots like dirt (as I discuss in detail here.)

The DSA politician could only respond to Hannity by lamely saying he wanted things to be like they were under Roosevelt as far as taxation was concerned. (Guess what? There were inflation-adjusted billionaires back then too, such as John D. Rockefeller and sons, Henry Ford, John Paul Getty, Jr. and so on.)

The billionaire class intends to demoralize all the good people who oppose class inequality by luring them into following DSA leadership, which will get them to substitute non-sensical and easily ridiculed DSA aims for good and sensible and PERSUASIVE egalitarian aims that most people share.