Last year on this same date I wrote some words I believe hold quite well a full year hence.
"One of the few great benefits of this last election is that we are now free to identify nonsense where it is. We no longer need to guard our words so as not to offend potential swing voters. Stupidity won this last election and is now in charge. Such a circumstance means that now is the time to point it out and not mince words while doing it. The left can have their victory and the power that goes with it, but they are not entitled to defy reason without consequence. They will drive this nation further and further towards ruin and they should have their stupidity pointed out as we go along. To do anything less would make us even more stupid than they are. I for one will use the intellect God gave me."
The stupidity I was pointing out at the time was the claim that failure to raise the federal government's debt limit was the same as the government failing to pay its debts.
I didn't mention the phrase "the full faith and credit of the United States" at the time but it would have been appropriate. That poor phrase has been used and abused out of any appropriate context so much over the past few years that the District of Columbia's child protected services should raid the White House and the DNC and take it away from them to protect it from any further harm.
The "we" I was referring to is not Republicans or even conservatives, but anyone with a good rational combination of libertarianism and a sound knowledge of macro-economics. Right-leaning libertarians, libertarian-leaning Republicans, and the Tea Party jump to mind. I suspect there may be some libertarian-leaning Independents and Democrats in that fold as well. Basically anyone who cares about individuals as individuals and not primarily as part of some collective somehow defined to suit some purpose.
So today's entry is an opinion piece and I of course respect my own opinion a great deal. But perhaps not enough to simply keep it to myself.
Here are a couple things I think are stupid but can't necessarily beat in to total submission with logic, not quite anyway, but close.
Libertarians who refuse to vote.
-- Like it or not, no matter where you go in the world, you live under the "protection" of some government or group of thugs. To live your life as though they don't exist or to defy the reality of their power over you is just that, denial. And that's both unhealthy and unproductive. You help no one including yourself by living this way, and worst of all you ignore the plight of others who are being oppressed.
People who describe capitalism as a failed social system or structure.
-- First of all capitalism is a straw man created to turn natural laws into an ism so that it can be challenged by other isms. I understand why pro free-market people use the term in a positive way but even that irritates me because capitalism doesn't actually exist and using the term just plays into the "capitalism has failed us" loonies attempts at reason. It's like saying, "let me start by granting you that the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of green cheese".
-- Secondly the idea that we can command supply and demand by government edict or that we can indefinitely supply everyone's needs by reducing private property rights (i.e. government driven wealth redistribution) is nothing short of a demonstration of willful ignorance of fundamental economics. Once you reduce the individual's ability to accumulate wealth you cannot help but reduce their motivation to accumulate more and thus you reduce the amount of wealth there is to distribute.
-- Thirdly the idea that we can just re-educate people or educate future generations to think more collectively about the creation of wealth is about as close to whistling past the graveyard as I've seen in years. Sure, studies seem to show that the accumulation of wealth has diminishing returns in terms of motivation. But that just points to the merits of free-market principles, not the failures. People who accumulate more and more wealth eventually become more and more secure financially which puts them in a better position to help others. Different people reach this philanthropic phase sooner or later. No doubt this variance is due to many complex factors including past experiences with adversity, personal character, plans to leave resources for future progeny, and the extent to which they feel the government is already forcing them to "give back". The "current" system already has a mechanism where those with more give to those in need. The difference between the "current system" and the proposed alternatives is the degree to which the individual is respected. And oh yes, the degree to which reality is being respected -- as in the "current" system" -- or being defied -- as in the so called alternative. Can there be a legitimate alternative to reality?
Conservatives that think any hand-out to the poor is worse than doing nothing.
-- Ebeneezer Scrooge lives amongst us. If these people would take the time to read the great conservative economists they would discover something they obviously weren't aware of, or perhaps were just ignoring as inconvenient. Free-markets do not perfectly and justly reward hard work or even well-planned and thought out hard work. Sure hard work does in the long run benefit people more than laziness, but only in the long run. And more than that, it only benefits more than laziness in the aggregate. It's well possible for someone who works hard all their life to always be poor, even in the middle of a wealthy community with minimal government interference. It's also possible for someone to be lazy all their lives and become wealthy and stay that way. As Jesus said, "the poor you will have with you always".
-- The "long run" may not come in time for some in immediate need and the "aggregate" may not ever come around for some.
-- This "system" of ours only prevents disaster for some through the generosity of those who can afford to help and are willing to. To turn the popular phrase, it's easier to teach a well fed man to fish than a starving one.
-- There is no such thing as "compassionate conservatism" because the term is redundant, but unfortunately there is such a thing as "heartless conservatism". And this is not true conservatism by any means. Any so-called conservative who doesn't care about an individual in need enough to actually meet their need where they are is a collectivist, and thus they are just a slow moving liberal-progressive-socialist. Instead of having government pick who dies they let arbitrary market forces do it. Allowing this in any way is anti-conservative.
-- The conservative alternative to liberalism is less government charity and more private charity, not the end of charity.
"One of the few great benefits of this last election is that we are now free to identify nonsense where it is. We no longer need to guard our words so as not to offend potential swing voters. Stupidity won this last election and is now in charge. Such a circumstance means that now is the time to point it out and not mince words while doing it. The left can have their victory and the power that goes with it, but they are not entitled to defy reason without consequence. They will drive this nation further and further towards ruin and they should have their stupidity pointed out as we go along. To do anything less would make us even more stupid than they are. I for one will use the intellect God gave me."
The stupidity I was pointing out at the time was the claim that failure to raise the federal government's debt limit was the same as the government failing to pay its debts.
I didn't mention the phrase "the full faith and credit of the United States" at the time but it would have been appropriate. That poor phrase has been used and abused out of any appropriate context so much over the past few years that the District of Columbia's child protected services should raid the White House and the DNC and take it away from them to protect it from any further harm.
The "we" I was referring to is not Republicans or even conservatives, but anyone with a good rational combination of libertarianism and a sound knowledge of macro-economics. Right-leaning libertarians, libertarian-leaning Republicans, and the Tea Party jump to mind. I suspect there may be some libertarian-leaning Independents and Democrats in that fold as well. Basically anyone who cares about individuals as individuals and not primarily as part of some collective somehow defined to suit some purpose.
So today's entry is an opinion piece and I of course respect my own opinion a great deal. But perhaps not enough to simply keep it to myself.
Here are a couple things I think are stupid but can't necessarily beat in to total submission with logic, not quite anyway, but close.
Libertarians who refuse to vote.
-- Like it or not, no matter where you go in the world, you live under the "protection" of some government or group of thugs. To live your life as though they don't exist or to defy the reality of their power over you is just that, denial. And that's both unhealthy and unproductive. You help no one including yourself by living this way, and worst of all you ignore the plight of others who are being oppressed.
People who describe capitalism as a failed social system or structure.
-- First of all capitalism is a straw man created to turn natural laws into an ism so that it can be challenged by other isms. I understand why pro free-market people use the term in a positive way but even that irritates me because capitalism doesn't actually exist and using the term just plays into the "capitalism has failed us" loonies attempts at reason. It's like saying, "let me start by granting you that the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of green cheese".
-- Secondly the idea that we can command supply and demand by government edict or that we can indefinitely supply everyone's needs by reducing private property rights (i.e. government driven wealth redistribution) is nothing short of a demonstration of willful ignorance of fundamental economics. Once you reduce the individual's ability to accumulate wealth you cannot help but reduce their motivation to accumulate more and thus you reduce the amount of wealth there is to distribute.
-- Thirdly the idea that we can just re-educate people or educate future generations to think more collectively about the creation of wealth is about as close to whistling past the graveyard as I've seen in years. Sure, studies seem to show that the accumulation of wealth has diminishing returns in terms of motivation. But that just points to the merits of free-market principles, not the failures. People who accumulate more and more wealth eventually become more and more secure financially which puts them in a better position to help others. Different people reach this philanthropic phase sooner or later. No doubt this variance is due to many complex factors including past experiences with adversity, personal character, plans to leave resources for future progeny, and the extent to which they feel the government is already forcing them to "give back". The "current" system already has a mechanism where those with more give to those in need. The difference between the "current system" and the proposed alternatives is the degree to which the individual is respected. And oh yes, the degree to which reality is being respected -- as in the "current" system" -- or being defied -- as in the so called alternative. Can there be a legitimate alternative to reality?
Conservatives that think any hand-out to the poor is worse than doing nothing.
-- Ebeneezer Scrooge lives amongst us. If these people would take the time to read the great conservative economists they would discover something they obviously weren't aware of, or perhaps were just ignoring as inconvenient. Free-markets do not perfectly and justly reward hard work or even well-planned and thought out hard work. Sure hard work does in the long run benefit people more than laziness, but only in the long run. And more than that, it only benefits more than laziness in the aggregate. It's well possible for someone who works hard all their life to always be poor, even in the middle of a wealthy community with minimal government interference. It's also possible for someone to be lazy all their lives and become wealthy and stay that way. As Jesus said, "the poor you will have with you always".
-- The "long run" may not come in time for some in immediate need and the "aggregate" may not ever come around for some.
-- This "system" of ours only prevents disaster for some through the generosity of those who can afford to help and are willing to. To turn the popular phrase, it's easier to teach a well fed man to fish than a starving one.
-- There is no such thing as "compassionate conservatism" because the term is redundant, but unfortunately there is such a thing as "heartless conservatism". And this is not true conservatism by any means. Any so-called conservative who doesn't care about an individual in need enough to actually meet their need where they are is a collectivist, and thus they are just a slow moving liberal-progressive-socialist. Instead of having government pick who dies they let arbitrary market forces do it. Allowing this in any way is anti-conservative.
-- The conservative alternative to liberalism is less government charity and more private charity, not the end of charity.
No comments:
Post a Comment