Navigation
User login
Topics
Archive
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
How Listening to the Crowd Leads to a Nanny State And Anarchy
by Brett Stevens
Japan, China and South Korea do not believe in free trade as we understand it. To us, they are our "trading partners." To them, the relationship is not like that of Evans & Novak or Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. It is not even like the Redskins and Cowboys. For the Cowboys only want to defeat the Redskins. They do not want to put their franchise out of business and end the competition -- as the Japanese did to our TV industry by dumping Sonys here until they killed it.
In the 1950s, we made all our own toys, clothes, shoes, bikes, furniture, motorcycles, cars, cameras, telephones, TVs, etc. You name it. We made it.
Are we better off now that these things are made by foreigners? Are we better off now that we have ceased to be self-sufficient? Are we better off now that the real wages of our workers and median income of our families no longer grow as they once did? Are we better off now that manufacturing, for the first time in U.S. history, employs fewer workers than government?
Our politicians and pundits may not understand what is going on. Historians will have no problem explaining the decline and fall of the Americans.
I never thought I'd agree with Pat Buchanan -- I grew up a good liberal in a good liberal household, where he was considered a cross between Satan and Hitler -- but he's dead on here.
America is in decline. We sit around buying and selling things at our desk jobs, and make nothing of value, then become politically obsessed with dividing up the spoils equally -- instead of making more wealth, which benefits everyone.
People feel self-important for helping pitied groups and individuals, but they're doing it to make themselves seem better to others. They are oblivious to the consequences, which are a long slow decline into third-world status.
We can reverse this but it requires calling liberals out on their game: uniting the disillusioned underachievers against those who can produce, in an effort to share in the value of that production without having achieved it. As Nietzsche says, a reversal of natural selection that leaves a society awash in idiots and parasites.
We can see what liberal civility is -- nonexistent:
What's surprising (or maybe not so) is that even though 70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, protests against black churches are virtually nonexistent. And everyone knows exactly why: Such actions would be viewed as racist. Yet these opponents of Prop. 8 can protest vehemently and shout obscenities in front of Mormon temples without ever being accused of religious bigotry. There's a clear double standard in our society. Where are the hate-crime cops when religious conservatives need them?
There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy.
Regardless of one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics.
I never thought I'd agree with Chuck Norris, either, but those are his words.
His point is clear: those who use moral self-righteousness to deny reality soon join an increasing cycle of denial of reality, to the point where they become fanatics.
Norris should read some Plato, especially the point where he shows how democracy leads to pluralism which leads to an inability to agree on anything, which creates the kind of infighting that tyrants need to take over.
Good points
There are many forms of charity. Whether or not these people are reaping the benefits of tax payers' money or not, we're still going to have homeless people whether we completely annihilate the welfare system. These poor and somewhat dangerous people will be filling our streets, our communities, and around are schools instead of cooped up in homeless shelter with other people of a similar fortune. I understand this isn't an ideal option right now, but it may be the best solution to having them run amok
No one wants to fund drug addicts, parasites, and other who cause potential danger to our society. But if we can strengthen poor people through education and housing, we can form them to be strong and contributing members of society, which is what everyone wants.
the point is the hypocrisy of most who "give"
Derek, you're obviously one of the few people who provide some level of valuable function to society through giving. You do much more direct work - running a food pantry. But blindly dismissing the logic in the article as "insane" is like speaking from a soap box and is unproductive...so are generalities like "just help people, just make the right choices". What are the right choices? Are you deciding this for us?
The point is that most people who give their money to others, thinking they're doing some good, are truly just doing it for the ego boost. Massachusetts, my home state, is very much like this: lots of rich people who are very well off, and they all love to think they're doing great things by paying out taxes to help the "downtrodden". Well, someone close to me worked in a pharmacy for a while and saw these people receiving state aid - MassHealth, we call it, for state-sponsored health care assistance - driving Cadillac Escalades to the drive-up pharmacy window to pick up insane amounts of pills prescribed by doctors who probably just wanted to get these morons out of their offices. Some of these people actually formed a drug-dealing ring right outside the store and were finally prosecuted for fraud. These are the people that some of your tax dollars go to. And don't forget that bureaucracies tend to take up most of the budgets that these "social welfare programs" are supposed to be using to pay out to the people who truly need it. And also don't forget that it's extremely difficult and politically incorrect for social welfare programs to judge need based on merit, so money just flies into the hands of people who meet certain criteria. You're poor and have kids? Who cares if you're a junky too; here's your welfare check. You just had two more kids? Here's more money. See the article on the site re: John LaBruzzo for more.
Don't pretend this doesn't exist, that welfare abuse never happens - that is the real insanity; denying reality because you give out a few cans of food a week.
Ron Paul is Christian, and he would support what you do - in fact, he would even go so far as to say the state/federal governments should stay out of the welfare game (which punishes people who produce to give to those who don't) and private institutions such as the Church and other volunteer organizations should be providing for people who can't make it. This worked in our country for a long time, well before the income tax was instituted which is now pushing the US down the slippery slope of socialism (see all your banks and automakers being showered with federal reserve notes which are now meaningless and worthless). Look at college loans which have pushed up tuition and provided an unnatural level of demand for 4-year colleges where most of the people applying today shouldn't even be attending (and you wonder what happened to our manufacturing sector?). Many of these problems are interrelated, and in politics, they all start out with good intentions but end up being much more harmful. Part of the reason why is outlined in the article.
Personality clash or plain evil?
This commentary contains the bizarro statement I consistently read from 'conservatives' who are living on the edge of madness:
"People feel self-important for helping pitied groups and individuals, but they're doing it to make themselves seem better to others. They are oblivious to the consequences, which are a long slow decline into third-world status."
The usual way this is said is:
'No one actually has any sense of altruism. It's a fraud. People only help others so they can gain. Those who help others are trying to compensate for their feeling of guilt over having had so much affluence, etc., while they are growing up." BlahBlahBlah ad nauseam...
I consider statements like this to be crazy, as in the now infamous 'Crazies' as Ronald Reagan called them, AKA followers of the Cult Of William Kristol, AKA the Neo-Con-Jobs, AKA the Neo-Feudalists, BlahBlahBlah.
Me = What I call a 'Positive Anarchist'. The more choice the better. But with choice comes responsibility. If you can't hack the responsibility, you have the choice taken away. It's very simple. But sadly, it is idealistic as human beings typically fight having to take responsibility for their actions. Such are the dopes who think there is no such thing as human altruism.
I take the choice of using an afternoon of my free time every week to help those who have trouble making ends meet. They need food to survive. I help run a food pantry run by one of the Christian churches I belong to. Imagine that! Christians being Christian! Remember the 'Good Samaritan' story? Remember how Yeshua (the actual name of Jesus, which is a greek mis-translation) taught us to be kind to our neighbor, to be our brother's keeper, to above all else LOVE one another? That's what I am doing. I know full well what are the consequences: Suffering people are helped by kind people. It's that simple. Beats me why people being kind to one another has to be misinterpreted into some act of horror, enabling the lazy, etc. I'll take kind people any time. The rest of you might want to leave the planet. That would be fine with me. You are the perpetrators of evil, that worst of all possible human inventions.
The best of all human inventions is LOVE.
So are these Crazies themselves EVIL? Or is this some strange personality clash where I think you're nuts and you think I'm nuts because we have opposing personalities?
I'd just love to have the denigration of our fellow species members stop once and for all.
And guess what Crazies: I am a champion of competition in the world of invention and innovation. It is required. Socialism is impossible for humans because it destroys incentive. I also believe all prisoners should have to work for their food and lodgings, removing all cost to the taxpayer. I also believe in diversity as required for all thriving natural systems. Monocultural systems consistently decay. I also believe in symbiosis, where components of systems contribute to the benefit of others. That too is required in natural systems.
Can you comprehend that as well as love of fellow humans? That's what works in my experience. Forget hand outs and bail outs. $700 billion in US bailouts down the drain IYAM. Giving bailout money to the auto companies is simply enablement of necrosis, like giving money to a street bum, knowing it will only feed his booze addiction. Give the guy FOOD and EDUCATION. Make intelligent choices that have positive consequences. Screwing over the poor and feeding the rich is what has horrifying consequences. There is such a thing as HELPING people that is GOOD FOR EVERYONE. Just make the right choices.
:-Derek
Fortune Magazine 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge.