Tag Archives: Leftist “Logic”

Abortion Regulation and Hypocrisy

I came across this Slate article defending and promoting the dismemberment of unborn children. Abortion is a travesty, but the support of abortion not what was particularly interesting about this piece. Rather this part is:

And partly because the bill was written by nonphysicians using nonmedical terminology, there is a good deal of uncertainty among doctors about precisely which procedures will be illegal come July.
…
In some ways, these new second-trimester bans are of a piece with the national movement to intimidate and harass physicians, with strategies that range from forcing them to perform unwanted ultrasounds and read from factually flawed “informed consent” scripts, to forcing them to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals (which may refuse to provide them)—or new efforts to simply refuse to let doctors learn about abortion in the first place.

This has echoes of earlier pro-baby-killing insanity in Texas. You might remember that last year the baby-killers got in a fit because Texas instituted laws where abortion clinics had to “meet the same architectural, plumbing, staffing, training and other requirements that apply to surgical centers”.

Didn’t it seem odd to anyone else that somehow baby-killing “clinics” were not held to the same basic safety standards that applied to other clinics? Didn’t it seem even more odd that leftists, usually in favour of safety regulations, were so opposed to the application of safety regulation in this particular case?

But this article combined with the earlier Texas events point out something even more odd: when it came to their sacred rite of abortion, the leftists seem to recognize that stringent regulations have negative effects on the ability of service providers to provide services.

Now compare this to Obamacare: somehow the leftists realize that heavy, arbitrary, and unclear regulation hurts the ability of baby-killers to kill babies while at the same time calling for even heavier, more arbitrary, and more opaque regulation on the health care industry as a whole? Do they want health care to be worse, do they lack the ability to integrate particular reasoning into wholistic worldviews, or are they just base liars and hypocrites?

When it comes to baby-killing, leftists even go so far as to say that basic regulations are simply forms of harassment and intimidation. Yet these same leftists will happily call for far more stringent and arbitrary regulations on everything not related to baby-killing. So, by the leftists own logic it seems that leftists wholeheartedly support the harassment and intimidation of any productive activity.

It it interesting to note how hypocritical leftists are on regulation. When it comes to things that are unimportant to the leftist, like economic production and good health care, stifling regulation is good, but when it comes to something important to the leftist, like massacring babies, any regulation at all is too much. As I’ve written before, the definition of good regulation to a liberal is anything that increases the power of government and doesn’t personally impact them, while the definition of bad regulation is anything that inconveniences them personally.

A Lesson on Partisan Hackery

I was cruising Slate today, my typical source for keeping informed on current goodthink, and came across a few articles from that paragon of reasoned thought, David Weigel.

He provided an interesting lesson on what being a partisan hack for too long can do to a person’s brain.

At 2:03 pm, David  wrote about a Democratic ad that selectively quoted Romney on abortion. He said “so, yeah, that’s misleading.” He then goes on to justify it being misleading because it revealed something  he believed true about Romney.

At 9:25 am, David wrote about Republicans selectively quoting both Obama and Biden. His response, derision at gaffe-spotting and people are hyperventilating for thinking about it as it doesn’t reveal anything.

In less than five hours, he changed his opinion on selectively quoting politicians to mislead individuals from derision because its a waste of time to being justified because it reveals the truth.

Today’s lesson: Being a partisan hack can really damage your reasoning abilities.

47%: The Liberal Goal

Recently, all the big political news has been about Romney’s 47% comments.

It has already been noted that this is true, the vast majority of federal income taxes are paid by the rich, while almost half pay noting. Even liberal “fact-checkers” don’t disagree.

Some liberals quibble that the poor pay comparatively more in payroll taxes, but this is a fallacious comparison, as payroll taxes are specifically designated to social security, unemployment insurance, and medicare. These are not general taxes (or at least shouldn’t be), they are taxed premiums dedicated to providing  insurance and retirement guarantees and should be treated as such. Comparing payroll taxes to general taxation is idiotic.

****

Everybody reading this already knows that a society where more than half the people do not contribute to general taxation and a significant population receive more in government benefits than are contributing can not sustain itself for long. Eventually the ability to pay for bread and circuses collapses.

The US is on it’s way there. 1/16 people are on disability, 1/7 on food stamps, and almost alf of people receive some sort of government benefits. Half of young workers are either unemployed or underemployed. In addition, the government controls about 2/5 of the economy and 1/5 of the employed work for the the government. Almost half of people don’t pay income taxes.  And government  is growing.

That’s not what I want to talk about today. If you can’t figure out why this is unhealthy for society, I’m not quite sure what I could say to convince you.

****

It has also been noted that getting people dependent on government is the liberal strategy and has been the liberal strategy since FDR.

So why are liberals so angry over Romney’s quote, when it’s been their strategy for decades?

For exactly that reason; they do not want people to understand their strategy. Liberalism is the ideology of the state; that is all the various interests that make up liberalism have in common. For a core of elite individuals, the expansion of the state is their reason d’etre. Their purpose is the Gramscian “slow march through culture” to destroy traditional “oppressive” institutions and replace it with the state.

But pointing that the expansion of the state is the goal, harms their ability to expand the state. They can’t come right out and say their purpose in the anglosphere. Englishmen are culturally suspicious of and hostile towards the state and inclined towards classical liberalism or liberal conservatism, with American Englishmen being the most hostile.

Even most liberals do not agree with the end goal of the Gramscian march. They are mostly decent people (ie: the “useful idiots“) who want to help the poor (or some other cause) but are either too lazy, too soft-hearteded, and/or too misinformed to realize the final outcomes of the policies they propose.

So, the left-liberals  can not come out and say their true goals, which is the expansion of the state. So, they cloak their desire to expand the state behind other justifications: keynesian economics, feminism, anti-poverty, anti-racism, the environment, equality, etc.

No matter what justification they use or what problem they say they want to solve, though, the answer is always the same: expand the state.

And the the useful idiots all line up in support.

****

The Gramscian strategy works well. Each time the government expands, it is almost impossible to destroy that expansion in the future, so you only have to take it a bit at a time. A temporary expansion here and a minor intrusion there and eventually the government controls half the economy. As the government takes over more control of life, opportunities to live life outside government decrease. Individuals become increasingly dependent on government at levels they themselves don’t even realize. Eventually, the government becomes the only thing holding society together, however poorly.

The government begins to replace parents, it replaces family, it replaces local charity, it replaces local churches, it replaces local community. Eventually,  it replaces the entirety of civil society.

If you want to see the end state of the Gramscian march, simply look at the black community in the US. Their families are destroyed, most of their children grow up without a father, a large proportion of their males end up criminals, dependence on the state is high, and their civil society is destroyed. The black community has been destroyed by the welfare society government has put onto it.

And guess what, blacks vote almost entirely Democrat, the party that fought for their enslavement and for Jim Crow, just so the state benefits that are destroying them keep flowing.

****

The left- liberal ideologues are intent on forcing the government on you, so that you become dependent on it, so you will support government’s further intrusion into and control of your life. That is and has been their strategy for decades.

They want you dependent.

Romney simply pointed out the results of the strategy. This is why they are attacking him so violently, because once you know that government dependency is, you might ask why it is.
If you ask why it is, you might understand their strategy. Once you understand their strategy, you might resist it.

So, the question is, do you want to be dependent on government as they manipulate you?

Liberal Economic Stupidity

Today, I am going to comment on two pieces of economic stupidity from liberals.

The first piece is from a Democracy Now! interview with Matt Taibbi (h/t: Clarissa), in which he writes:

Well, Mitt Romney is really the representative of an entire movement that’s taken over the American business world in the last couple of decades. You know, America used to be-especially the American economy was built upon this brick-and-mortar industrial economy, where we had factories, we built stuff, and we sold it here in America, and we exported it all over the world. That manufacturing economy was the foundation for our wealth and power for a couple of centuries. And then, in the ’80s, we started to transform ourselves from a manufacturing economy to a financial economy. And that process, which, you know, on Wall Street we call financialization, was really led that-sort of this revolution, where instead of making products, we made transactions, we made financial products, like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. We created money through financial transactions rather than building products and selling them around the world. And that revolution was really led by people like Mitt Romney. And the advantage of financialization, from the point of view of the very rich and the people who run the American economy, is that it was extremely efficient at extracting wealth and kicking it upward, whereas the old manufacturing economy had the sort of negative effect of spreading around to the entire population. In the financialization revolution, you can take all of the money, and you don’t have to spread it around with anybody. And Mitt Romney was kind of a symbol of that fundamental shift in our economy.

Now, this kind of argument is made all the time by liberals: that evil businesses and bankers are destroying the manufacturing sector and traditional blue-collar jobs.

The problem is its wrong. Now, don’t get me wrong, the traditional blue-collar model is dying in North America, but the left has the culprit wrong. If they want to see why it is dying, they only need to look in the mirror.

The manufacturing economy is dying because of government overregulation, pushed by liberals. Between an increasingly harsh regulatory environment, brutal taxation levels, the manipulation of local zoning regulations, corrupt unions, political interference, etc., etc. the left has made it all but impossible for blue-collar industry to thrive.

As the Captain has written: capital flight is a built-in feature of socialism.

If you make it impossible for industrialists to create industry in North America, do not be surprised when no industry is created in North America.

As just one example of the war leftists are engaging on blue collar industry, we can look to the Keystone XL Pipeline. The US recently had a perfect opportunity to create thousands of traditional blue-collar jobs. Canada was practically begging the US to allow this pipeline to be built through the US and TransCanada had plans drawn up and was ready to build. XL would have created 20,000 jobs and huge revenues for both Canada and the US. It never happened. Why?

Because a bunch of idiot leftists protested it and the government killed it.

This is not an isolated event.

I lied earlier; I’m going to provide more than one example,  to show it’s not just oil pipelines. Let’s look at a few examples of random blue-collar industries:

I could go on forever, but why bother. The simple fact is, at every step, across every industrial sector, leftist ideologues are trying their damnedest to destroy any industry here in North America.

These ideologues have created a government of over-regulation and over-taxation that is destroying blue-collar industry. The programs these people have put in place costs the economy $1.75 trillion a year.

After the huge swath of destruction they have wreaked across the North American industrial landscape, I can hardly believe they have the gall to turn around and complain about disappearing blue collar jobs.

Are leftists so stupid that they can not see the very visible side effects of their ideology or are they just plain evil?

****

As an almost completely irrelevant aside, there is at least one major company (the second-largest private company in the US) I can name of the top of my head that manufactures most of its products in the US. It’s called Koch Industries. Unsurprisingly, it is the target of constant attacks and smears by the left.

****

The second piece of idiocy I’m going to comment on is from Slate. Michael Moran writes:

Are we getting back to normal? Well, of course not: times were not normal to start. To get back to that normal would be national suicide – an asset bubble fueled normal more unsustainable than anything either of our political parties is flirting with today.

…

Do we really pine for the bubble years? Remember, folks, the “prosperity” now implied by those who as about “four years ago”  were fuelled by a runaway financial system that treated peoples’ homes, jobs and lives like so many chips in a casino.

Would we be “better off” if the bubble loomed over us again?  No, we’d be walking toward an even deeper cliff.

I agree with this, an economy based upon a bubble is stupid, and not something we want to return to.

In the same article he also writes:

First, the view that President Obama wants to emerge from Charlotte: Four years ago the country was sliding over the edge of an economic cliff. Today, we’ve got one leg back on top, and even with the Republican congressional caucus holding onto the other leg and screaming “I’d rather fall to my death than climb back onto that debt-strewn precipice” – we’re clawing our way to safety.

…

Ironically, his economic policies are not the real problem. Again, this was always going to take a long time to solve. We can argue whether there should have been more stimulus (I think so). But on the finer economic points, the general direction has been correct.

…

Recessions, as Europe demonstrates every single day, are no time to cut government spending: the result is a vicious circle in which austerity kills growth and deficits become nearly insurmountable (especially in countries that have to fund them on the open market). So even if deficits rise during a recession, the idea is to hasten the return of growth that, in the end, is the only real solution to such gaps.

It is very clear he is in favour of Keynesian stimulus and against reigning in government spending.

Somehow, he doesn’t see the contradiction between these two positions. One can not be against a bubble economy and be for economic stimulus, as economic stimulus is the creation of a bubble economy.

Government spending inherently creates economic bubbles.

An economic bubble occurs when the nominal value of something is inflated far beyond its intrinsic worth.

Government spending, particularly stimulus spending, is spending on goods or services individuals are not willing to spend on and invest in on an individual level.

In other words, stimulus is spending on goods and services more than its inherent market value.

Anybody advocating Keynesian stimulus is advocating the government creates a bubble by investing where the free market is unwilling to invest.

(There is one difference though, bubbles on the private market will generally pop at some point in the short-medium term when someone realizes its idiotic. On the other hand, government supported bubbles can be propped-up almost indefinitely through tax-payer funding, at least until the state runs out of money).

****

Anyhow, that completes today’s round of liberal stupidity.

The Internal Contradiction of Liberal Ideology

Here’s a post I’ve been planning on writing for a while, but haven’t got around to. CR at GL Piggy wrote a post that touched on it, so, now’s a good a time as any to finally get it out.

****

There is a fundamental contradiction within modern progressivism* between its economic beliefs and underlying philosophical beliefs.

North American liberals hold to Keynesian economic theory; all the standard-bearing liberal economists, such as Krugman, Ygglesias, and Stiglitz, are Keynesian.

Keynesianism is demand-side economics, where economic health is determined by aggregate demand for goods and services. A main goal of Keynesian economics is to keep demand high, so more goods are produced, which leads to increased employment, full-employment being a primary aim of Keynesianism. The government is required to interfere in times of low demand (ie. recessions and depressions) by spending money (it doesn’t really matter on what) to raise demand. Too much savings is harmful to the economy as it prevents spending.

This opposed to demand-side economics, where economic health is determined by the supply of goods and services. It calls for low barriers to production, to lower prices so consumers can purchase goods at the lowest cost. The government is required to remove themselves from interference so individuals can best optimize savings and consumption for themselves.

Essentially, the main theoretical difference between the two is whether the economy is driven by creation (production and investment) or by consumption (demand and spending).

On the other hand, liberal political philosophy is strongly opposed to consumerism. It is also strongly environmental in nature and oppose what they refer to as over-consumption. They’ll complain of artifical demand created by mass media, rage against planned obsolescence, and have their Buy Nothing Days.

Now, if you are more intellectually acute than the average occupy protester, you may have noticed something from my descriptions of Keynesianism and progressivism: they contradict each other.

The economic theory that the economy is driven by consumption and that the government must work to keep demand high is essentially a call for over-consumption. A theory where economic health depends on demand for consumption while aiming for full employment, is a call for people to buy things they don’t need so they can work more so they can buy things they don’t need.

Keynesian economics is consumerism.

Liberal economics necessiatates and prizes everything liberals claim to hate about capitalism.

****

So why does liberal economic theory contradict liberal political values?

It’s simple: government control.

Earlier I told you the main theoretical difference between supply- and demand-side economics, but that’s just theory and nobody cares much about theory. Much more important to why (most) people choose which economic theory they prefer is the practical implications of the theory.

The main practical difference in application between the two theories is the level of government control of the economy.

Liberals like Keynesian economics, not because they believe in the theoretical underpinnings of Keynesianism, but because it allows more government control over the economy.

The capability of free-market capitalism to produce goods and services is so obvious to see, that no one with any pretensions to intellectual seriousness can completely discard capitalism. The superiority of free-market capitalism is so undeniable that (most of) the left has given up fighting capitalism as a whole.

But progressivists are unwilling to give up their desire for control, so instead they have adopted mixed economic theories which use free-market capitalism as a substructure, then put a government regulation superstructure over the substructure so the elites can still feign control over the economy.

That is why their economic belief in Keynesianism (which is ideological consumerism) can so blatantly contradict their supposed values of anti-consumerism and environmentalism.

Keynesianism is only a superficial belief, a mere ideological tool to justify liberals acquiring what they really value: the expansion of the state.

* I use liberalism, progressivism, and new left interchangeably as there has been no real difference between them in North America since the McGovernite takeover of the Democratic Party (and Trudeaumania in Canada).

Lightning Round – 2012/08/22

Following the huge do Christian’s need game debate, Cane started a new blog, linking to all the pieces discussing his original post. Check out the discussion, it’s a good one.

Good news for Athol. Marriage game is now going to be taught to the army.

Values should take priority over women.

A good definition of “slut.”

Biting satire from Dalrock.

Some people live with a slave mentality.

As an ectomorph, this is interesting. The description of an ectomorph seemed fairly spot on in reference to me.

Patriactionary are measuring the corpses of abortion.

The pay-gap destroyed and a good response to being called a mansplainer.

Feminism may not be as deep in younger women as some think.

US politics has become about people voting themselves free shit.
Related: A businessman is sick of it.
Related: I continue to like Koch more and more.

Is upward mobility dying?
Related:The “screwed generation” turns to Ryan.

A comparison of which states give to charity and their political orientation. Hint: The bleeding hearts don’t look so good.
Related: Obama believes in helping his brothers, as long as by brother you don’t mean his actual brother.

Fred predicts an impending police state.
Related: One of the stupidest ideas I’ve heard in a while.

Ferguson does an excellent takedown of Obama. If Newsweek is turning on Obama, who else might.
Related: A takedown of Chomsky.

Is the current recession worse than the Great Depression?
Related: How to destroy a nation with inflation.

Boy, does oil ever get such huge subsidies.
Related: Government killed passenger rail.

An economists’ guide to dating.

Economic stupidity.

Followers of the “religion of peace” call for the execution of a handicapped 11-year-old on specious charges.
Related: Remember, tolerance requires punishment for not praying to Allah, in British schools.
Related: Arrested for walking his dog.

Does quantum mechanics destroy materialism and help support belief in God?

Canada used to be free: a comparison of freedom in Canada and freedom in the US.

Gunman shoots up the Family Research Council.

Teaching 8-year-olds about 6 genders. Go Ontario.

Women don’t need men to get married, literally. Why not just marry a amusement ride?

I sometimes wonder if I play too many video games.

The cost of a child.

Single mother myths from Slate. I’m kinda surprised Slate printed this.

Is the double-standard eroding?

Some people’s ignorance (or deliberate distortion) of the Bible is astounding.

The media is the enemy.

(H/T: Maggie’s Farm, Smallest Minority, SDA, RWCG, HUS, AL Daily)

Lightning Round – 2012/08/01

Here’s my first Lightning Round since my return. As well, I’ve changed the dating system; it used to be each Tuesday, but for time reasons I ended up posting them at midnight, so nobody would actually see them until Wednesday. So now they will be dated for Wednesdays. Not a big deal, but thought I’d mention it.

Why do intelligent young men go on killing sprees?

Romney will lose because he’s beta and even if he won it wouldn’t matter. Aurini take on the elections echoes some of my thoughts.

If you are interested in marrying, do not try to impress the woman; invite her into your life instead.

The “demise of guys” is the result of men following their perceived rational self-interest. If you want young men to engage in society, you have to change the incentives so they want to participate.

Being a bureaucrat myself, I think Bill is a little harsh. It’s less the bureaucrats (at least the lower-level ones) than the system itself; again incentives. I’ll try to write more in-depth on this in the future.

The Captain examines the credentialism gap. The idea of learning a bunch of theory when young that you won’t be able to apply for years is quite asinine.

Idiots wonder about why female children become sexualized like it’s something unnatural. Dalrock points out is it’s natural when you remove cultural conditioning.

A tribute to Friedman, a voice for freedom.

Be free.

Printing assault rifles. Boo-yeah.
Related: Why we need the ability to print them.
Related: Remedial history. Hehe.

Roissy posits that the impact sexbots will be a thousandfold extension of the impact of pornography.

Given that I’m trying to start up an online side business, I appreciate this guide from Art of Manliness.

Hehe. That’s funny.

This is hilarious.

Stupid regulations. Also kinda funny, in a sad way.
Related: Opening a lemonade stand.

Haha… The husband would probably be better off if she did divorce him. Although, I question what kind of pathetic man would marry a harpy like that?

Hmmm… Why is Murfreeburo’s opposition to a mosque “bad” while Chicago’s banning of Chic-Fil-A is “good”. Silly leftists.

If Canada’s economy is the envy of Europe, why the hell do the liberals and leftists want to emulate European economic policies?
Related: What Obama doesn’t want you to know about Canada. Do you mean fiscal responsibility can actually be good for the economy? Shocking.
Related: America is kind of awesome.

An oldie, but it’s good to remember how wrong environmentalists are in their predictions.

Remember, if some groups are not capable of passing your tests, you must be a racist. If women can’t you’re a sexist. Both are illegal.

A possible pending food crisis.
Related: Possible economic apocalypse in China.

(H/T: Patricationary, Wintery Knight, SDA, GL Piggy)