Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by EyeDocGator, Aug 14, 2018.
You think the hipsters will have the Aks?
Data Show California Is a Living Example of the Good Intentions Fallacy "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." Wednesday, January 09, 2019 Jon Miltimore During a speech at Harvard several years ago, Charlie Munger related a story about a surgeon who removed “bushel baskets full of normal gallbladders” from patients. The doctor was eventually removed, but much later than he should have been. Munger, the vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, wondered what motivated the doctor, so he asked a surgeon who participated in the removal of the physician. The doctor was not motivated by profit or sadism; he very much believed he was doing right. “He thought that the gallbladder was the source of all medical evil, and if you really love your patients, you couldn't get that organ out rapidly enough,” the physician explained. The doctor was not motivated by profit or sadism; he very much believed he was doing right. The Righteousness Fallacy The anecdote is a perfect illustration of the righteousness fallacy, which Barry Brownstein noted is rampant in modern politics and a key driver of democratic socialism. The Righteousness Fallacy (also known as the fallacy of good intentions) is described by author Dr. Bo Bennett as the idea that one is correct because their intentions are pure. It recently occurred to me that California is a perfect example of this fallacy. Consider these three facts about the Golden State: California spends about $98.5 billion annually on welfare—the most in the US—but has the highest poverty rate in America.California has the highest income tax rate in the US, at 13.3 percent, but the fourth greatest income inequality of the 50 states.California has one of the most regulated housing markets in America, yet it has the highest homeless population in American and ranks 49th (per capita) in housing supply.The Danger of Favoring Intent over Result That politicians would persist with harmful policies should come as little surprise. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once observed the uncanny proclivity of politicians “to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” In his book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman described the danger of such thinking. [The threat comes] … from men of good intentions and good will who wish to reform us. Impatient with the slowness of persuasion and example to achieve the great social changes they envision, they’re anxious to use the power of the state to achieve their ends and confident in their ability to do so. Yet… Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it. I don’t doubt that California lawmakers, like the physician who was removing healthy gall bladders, believe they are doing the right thing. Yet they, like the physician, need to wake up to reality and realize they aren’t making people better.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sprang immediately to mind upon reading this.
Gingerbread people does sound more interesting.
So do Bernie and all the other snowflakes. The blizzard may last a long time.
STILL FIGHTING THE LAST WAR AGAINST SOCIALISM Jeff Deist Why does support for socialism persist? The short answer may be simple human nature, our natural tendency toward dissatisfaction with the present and unease about the future. Even in the midst of almost unimaginable material comforts made possible only by markets and entrepreneurs—both derided by socialists—we cannot manage to conclusively defeat the tired but deadly old arguments for collective ownership of capital. We're so rich that socialists imagine the material wealth all around us will continue to organize itself magically, regardless of incentives. It's a vexing problem, and not an academic one. Millions of young people across America and the West consider socialism a viable and even noble approach to organizing society, literally unaware of the piles of bodies various socialist governments produced in the 20th century. The fast-growing Democratic Socialists of America, led by media darlings Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, now enjoy cool kid status. Open socialist Bernie Sanders very nearly won the Democratic Party's 2016 nominee for president before being kneecapped by the Clinton machine. New York City mayor Bill de Blasio helpfully announces "there is plenty of money in this city, it's just in the wrong hands." He freely and enthusiastically champions confiscation and redistribution of wealth without injury to his political popularity. Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are outliers on the Right. Ocasio-Cortez and de Blasio are not outliers on the Left. How is this possible, even as markets and semi-capitalism lift millions out of poverty? Why does socialism keep cropping up, and why do many well-intentioned (and ill-intentioned) people keep falling for something so patently evil and unworkable? Why do some battles have to be fought over and over? The Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin War fell decades ago. The Eastern Bloc discovered western consumerism, and liked it. Bill Clinton declared the era of Big Government over, and Francis Fukuyama absurdly pronounced that Western ideology had forever won the day. Even China and Cuba eventually succumbed to pressure for greater economic freedoms, not because of any ideological shift but because it became impossible to hide the reality of capitalist wealth abroad. Yet economic freedom and property rights are under assault today in the very Western nations that became rich because of them. Today's socialists insist their model society would look like Sweden or Denmark; not the USSR or Nazi Germany or Venezuela. They merely want fairness and equality, free healthcare and schooling, an end to "hoarded" wealth, and so forth. And they don't always advocate for or even know the textbook definition of socialism, as professors Benjamin Powell and Robert Lawson learned by attending socialist conferences (see their new book Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World). In many cases young people think socialism simply means a happy world where people are taken care of. Never mind the Scandinavian countries in question insist they are not socialist, never mind the atrocities of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, and never mind the overwhelming case made by Ludwig von Mises and others against central economic planning. Without private owners, without capital at risk, without prices, and especially without profit and loss signals, economies quickly become corrupted and serve only the political class. Nicolás Maduro feasts while poor Venezuelans eat dogs, but of course this isn't "real" socialism. History and theory don't matter to socialists because they imagine society can be engineered. The old arguments and historical examples simply don't apply: even human nature is malleable, and whenever our stubborn tendencies don't comport with socialism's grand plans a "social construct" is to blame. These most recent spasms of support for the deadly ideology of socialism remind us that progressives aren't kidding. They may not fully understand what socialism means, but they fully intend to bring it about. Single-payer health care, "free" education, wealth redistribution schemes, highly progressive income taxes, wealth taxes, gun bans, and radical curbs on fossil fuels are all on the immediate agenda. They will do this quickly if possible, incrementally if they have to (see, again, the 20th century). They will do it with or without popular support, using legislatures, courts and judges, supranational agencies, university indoctrination, friendly media, or whatever political, economic, or social tools it takes (including de-platforming and hate speech laws). This is not paranoia; all of this is openly discussed. And say what you will about progressivism, it does have a central if false ethos: egalitarianism. Conservatives, by contrast, are not serious. They have no animating spirit. They don't much talk about liberty or property or markets or opportunity. They don't mean what they say about the Constitution, they won't do a thing to limit government, they won't touch entitlements or defense spending, they won't abolish the Department of Education or a single federal agency, they won't touch abortion laws, and they sure won't give up their own socialist impulses. Trumpism, though not conservative and thoroughly non-intellectual, drove a final stake through the barely beating heart of Right intellectualism, from the Weekly Standard to National Review. Conservatism today is incoherent, both ideologically and tactically incapable of countering the rising tide of socialism. Generals always fight the last war, and politics is no different. We all tend to see the current political climate in terms of old and familiar divisions, long-faded alliances, and obsolete rhetoric. We all cling to the comfortable ideology and influences that help us make sense of a chaotic world. As one commenter recently put it, liberal Baby Boomers still think it's 1968 and conservative Baby Boomers still think it's 1985. Generation X and Millennials will exhibit the same blinders. It may be disheartening to keep fighting what should be a long-settled battle against socialism, but today we have no other choice.
Interesting perspective, except that Jesus didn’t come here to establish an earthly form of government.
No, but he would be excoriated by the left as they shouted about separation of church & state.
Except they don't do any of that. If elected they steal more from everyone, hire their friends and relatives, create as many union govt people as possible (to funnel themselves re-election money), convert as much other funds as possible to their own pocketbook so they leave DC as hundred millionaires, create bureaucracies to harass the public with senseless regulations, and ensure they get re-elected. But mostly stealing money and getting re-elected. In the case of Wasserman Schultz, I'd add hire foreign spies with no training in computers and make them into your IT dept managers so that the whole world has access to your computer systems, for a price.
I’m pretty sure he was. Not to sound crazy, but trump is closer to the Jesus character than any other establishment character. It’s the Pharisees that are calling for Trumps head.
Reminds me of when some greens were decrying all the gas guzzling and exhaust producing cars by saying “What would Jesus drive?” It quickly ended when somebody pointed that since he was a carpenter, he’d probably drive a pick up truck.
I like number 3. Better be glad I lifted the seat.
In case anyone needs an exterminator:
That's pretty funny
You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.