…an ongoing series:
Most people who haven’t taken the time to learn about the issue (which is to say, most people) believe that conservatism is either a largely Christian fundamentalist movement or principally informed by Ayn Rand or, if you listen to the geniuses at places like Salon or MSNBC, both.
I’m always amused by morons who think that, because I’m skeptical about climate models that are not only failing to predict the future but can’t even predict the past, that I must be a creationist.
Or amongst the swath of peeps who aren’t strict-Calvinists in their interpretation yet “Creationists”.
“Let there be Light” -> “Insert Maxwell’s Equations Here.”
And “Day” is somewhat flexible as a length.
I’d need a hellacious amount of time with a Deep Thought before I’d be able to pick a good setting for Planck’s Constant though.
Why should people who know everything bother with mere facts?
“Most Harvard grads tend to believe in such things as evolution and global warming. “
It is not just global climate change, everything is political. As in health care.
Contrary to the Libertarian audience at a Republican Presidential Primary Debate who allegedly called out “let ’em die” in response to a hypothetical where government-aid for health care could help, no one wants to see people suffer. Furthermore, there is a utilitarian argument in that if persons are left to suffer and die for lack of them having money, it creates difficulties in maintaining an orderly, that is, a law-abiding society where you don’t have people turning to crime out of desperation.
That said, there is a utilitarian argument against Socialism or even against socialism-lite, that it leads to scarcity, putting economic tradeoffs into politics, trading a privileged elite based on economic power for a privileged elite based on political power, and so on. The tradeoffs are real, even if you are not a Libertarian and don’t have the Libertarian objection to giving up liberty on Ayn Randian moral grounds.
I never, never, ever hear the President, our own Jim, or others even acknowledge these tradeoffs, even if on accepts a role for the government in healthcare. Mickey Kaus is unique among commentators “on the Left” in indeed acknowledging the tradeoffs, but maybe it is only time before he is considered “Right wing”?
I was kind of hoping that the rollout of the Exchanges would fail catastrophically, that only two people would be able to sign up (heard this kinda happened in Oregon, a “blue state” with its own Exchange). Not that I want to see anyone suffer; I want people to not suffer, and for that to happen, we really need to revisit the whole PPACA legislation from top to bottom.
I guess our esteemed host Rand is not a Believer, even in the mischievous “lesser gods” I speak of, but in my eschatology, those lesser gods are hard at work. The ACA and Healthcare.gov can’t really be described as working, but it isn’t completely crippled and now people are coming out of the woodwork telling us how great it is. 7 million people enrolled!
The wacky (and snarky) NYT “fact checkers” are giving the House Speaker “two Pinochios” for the claim that “we have lost ground, with more people losing healthcare plans than have gained them.” I wish this were true, again, not because I want harm to people, but I see people being harmed and I would wish for the proponents to admit that this thing just isn’t working as it should.
Then you have Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics, maybe I perceive his remarks as less snarky and more balanced, again, maybe because of my political bias. He goes through some statistics to suggest that the claim of 4 million signed up for Medicaid on account of the Exchanges is optimistic because people go on (and off) Medicaid . . . all the time. He offers a “controlled experiment” (good luck with that with Global Warming/Climate Change — as advanced by the Democratic/Democrat party that has Serbian/Serb members such as the Mayor of Fort Lee, NJ). He compares states with the Medicaid expansion with states who declined. Read what Mr. Trende says, and no, he doesn’t call people liars and shame them with Pinochios about points that are genuinely arguably (the NYT puppet makers seems to think that because Mr. Obama told people “if you lost your insurance, you can get it back” that this indeed is taking place out in the real world — do they ever offer retractions where they assign themselves Pinochios?)
Every last think is now political and packaged and focus-group tested and spun.
That said, there is a utilitarian argument against Socialism or even against socialism-lite, that it leads to scarcity, putting economic tradeoffs into politics, trading a privileged elite based on economic power for a privileged elite based on political power, and so on.
I never, never, ever hear the President, our own Jim, or others even acknowledge these tradeoffs
Here I am, formally acknowledging that there are tradeoffs involved in increasing government power. I think that if you read Obama’s speeches you’ll find acknowledgement there as well.
That said, I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that every government action increases scarcity, or that you can have politics (whether libertarian or socialist) without economic tradeoffs. Most policy decisions are good or bad ideas for reasons that have to do with the specifics of the policy in question, not where that policy falls on a right-left or libertarian-socialist axis.
FWIW, it’s the Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler who assigns “Pinocchios”, not the New York Times.
Most policy decisions are good or bad ideas for reasons that have to do with the specifics of the policy in question
Not for leftists. For you folks, a policy decision’s goodness or badness is solely a function of how it makes you feel. It’s how you end up with so many cliches; “It’s for the children”, “If it saves one life”, etc.
Here I am, formally acknowledging that there are tradeoffs involved in increasing government power. I think that if you read Obama’s speeches you’ll find acknowledgement there as well.
Yet you refuse to even acknowledge whether increasing government power is constitutional or not. That is the problem. Seizing the liberty of millions of Americans is simply wrong. Forcing millions into a system against their will is slavery. It’s like saying that there are tradeoffs in increasing the number of burglaries each year.
Because you stand on a flimsy premise, everything you say about the situation is simply wrong and, frankly, terrifying.
“I think that if you read Obama’s speeches you’ll find acknowledgement there as well.”
The only trade-off you get from Obama speeches are trading away the strawman positions he posits (“There are those who say…”) for Dear leaser’s blindingly brilliant ideas.
Thanks for the correction. I must have read a different fact checker in the NYT, one who engages in blatent polemics and calls them facts, sneers at anyone who reasons differently on arguable points, and spells the Italian loan-word-proper name “Pinocchio” with only one “c.” Glenn Kessler at WaPo would never, ever do such a thing . . .
I’m always amused by morons who think that, because I’m skeptical about climate models that are not only failing to predict the future but can’t even predict the past, that I must be a creationist.
I remember running into this when I started posting on sci.space.policy about 15 years ago. After making a post skeptical of Roton I was shocked to be called a socialist and worse. On this forum any comment that even suggests that the Outer Space Treaty is not on the same level as Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto gets one called a collectivist at best.
People assume that certain memes, even ostensibly unrelated ones, travel in packs. And they’re not always wrong.
I’ve had the same experience here, where dn-guy called me a “conservative” and accused me of railing against electric cars. I’m not a conservative (or a libertarian), and I am an engineer who has made his living in the energy world. But the invective comes out as a knee-jerk reaction.
I have to say that the knee-jerk goes both ways, though. I would really like to engage Jim and even dn-guy in dialog rather than flame wars. Both seem to have a lot to contribute, even if one disagrees. Both have been right on certain points. Thomas Matula is a strong contributor as well, though he seems to have shied away from commentary recently (and he’s not coming from the Left, as far as I know).
Anyway, that’s where I am tonight.
“I must be a creationist.”
What does creationism mean to you?
Creationism means you don’t believe in evolution by natural selection. What does it mean to you, Douchenozzle?
So do you believe in ‘evolution by natural selection’?
Why do you continue to ask stupid questions?
Oh, wait.
It’s ok. One day you will find out that all of the stereotypes you have been taught are not true. People who are different than you are not the monsters your paradigm creators want you to think they are.
You might even realize magical thinking takes place outside the realm of religious belief.
’m always amused by morons who think that, because I’m skeptical about climate models that are not only failing to predict the future but can’t even predict the past, that I must be a creationist.
I get that all the time too and it’s why I think they will never be able to admit that global warmmongering has always been anti-science.
They’ve been too superiorly smug for too long to ever admit, to us and most especially to themselves, that they were wrong.
The Sun could go all but dormant with glaciers coming down through AZ and they’d still be blaming it on Global Worming.