Usually, when you encounter an item with no definitive price tag, it is because the item is significantly overpriced. When a customer must ask for the price, the salesman can estimate wealth, gullibility, and many other things before finding a way to screw the customer. It also provides an opportunity to sell the customer, rather than merely counting on the item and its price to convince the buyer.
In simple terms, forcing another to be open about his wants, and being closed off on your own, gives a man a decided bargaining advantage.
Lately, we’ve seen this at work with Antifa, BLM, #TheResistance, and other assorted left-wing groups. Grievances are produced, from slavery, to the plight of Native Americans, to American foreign adventures in the Middle East. Being honest with ourselves, some of these grievances have at least a historical merit to them. But for such leftist groups, the price for burying the grievance is obfuscated behind buzzwords and jargon. We must dismantle the cisheteropatriarchy, we must check our privilege, we must become a positive advocate for change. Everything from microaggressions to cultural appropriation are cited as examples of these things.
But I ask, what change?
Allow me to step into the shoes of one of Babylon 5’s villains, Mr. Morden, and ask the question: “what do you want?”
Well, leftists? What do you want? What is your price for putting away identity politics and your incessant portrayals of right-wing racism, sexism, homophobia, and islamophobia? These portrayals have silenced some of us, enraged others, and sent many conservatives running for the political closet. And once there, they still voted right-wing. Thus we now have one Donald J. Trump, despite all predictions to the contrary.
Some of us, like the esteemed Francis at Liberty’s Torch, have made peace with the incessant accusations and said something to the effect of “if you think that means I’m a racist then fine, I’m a racist. Now what?” Others, like myself, maintain that the portrayal of racism as the greatest of all evils is a mistake, dredged up because of the relative historical freshness of Nazi evil, and America’s own struggles with slavery. These evils most Americans are familiar with, but judging from the proliferation of Che Guevara t-shirts, the evils of Communism are less well understood.
And so racism becomes the number one evil in America, a sort of 21st century red scare, except there are even fewer to play the part of the reds (and many more actual reds).
All of that is immaterial, however. What is the end goal of the leftist? What does he want? What does his ideal America (or world, for those of a globalist persuasion) look like? Who gets to live there? What becomes of us and others who do not fit this progressive vision of the future?
When asked, leftists are often quite silent on the price. Just today, one explained that I should google the matter (never mind that I’ve exhausted google as a resource for this) because she didn’t want to “perform free emotional labor” on my behalf. Naming the price is now something that, in itself, costs money. Imagine if you asked the salesman what the price of a thing was, and he replied “you have to pay me to find out.”
Like the little psychological trick of decreasing sticker shock with slick salesmanship, the left understands that by hiding the price, they increase the possibility of ripping off some gullible idiot. Namely, us. And it works well enough on some. Enough that the thought of being accused of racism or prejudice is enough to elicit outright fear in many, not just an answer to the question.
Once an accusation of racism is leveled, very little is sufficient to dismiss it. Do you have many friends of the race in question? RationalWiki tells you that this is insufficient (after all, Hitler liked one Jew). You’re still a racist. What if, instead, you married a black woman, loved her and her family, and had a child with her? Well, you’re still a racist, because as some Puppy-kickers explained on Facebook (they have since deleted the posts in question, but I saved a screenshot, and Brad Torgersen can confirm it), black pussy doesn’t mean you aren’t racist. The Puppy-kickers even made this into a t-shirt. This argument was recently resurrected on Twitter by Talib Kweli Greene where he explained that if you marry an Indian woman, you’re still a racist, you just like Indian pussy.
So your friends, family, and relationships are dismissed. The accusation still stands. And remember, you are guilty unless proven innocent. And to prove your innocence, you must embrace leftist politics. That is the only accepted coin. And even by doing that, you would still have to abase yourself thoroughly and completely. Meanwhile, a woman who murdered her own 4 year old son applied to Harvard, and was denied. Naturally, this had something to do with racism, according to Vox.com. Of course it has little or nothing to do with being a convicted murderer of a child.
Ultimately, the choice is this: convert to leftism, or risk being tarred as a racist with no possible way to prove otherwise, because you are guilty until proven innocent, and all evidence except leftist political sentiments will be summarily dismissed as insufficient.
Meanwhile, a reasonable man might be inclined to ask the price of buying this weapon off the left. What would it take for them to put it away?
Their rants and raves on this matter are difficult to parse. Ta-Nehisi Coates penned a long piece in support of reparations, and when I first read it I expected a concrete answer to the question “what do you want?” Instead, we were treated to a historical lecture on the plight of blacks in America. We already knew this. Everybody knows about slavery, Jim Crow, and discrimination against blacks. How can anyone not know? The media has been bombarding us with these things for as long as I’ve been alive. And if the media wasn’t, BLM sure has been making a rather more raw effort at doing so. We get it. These things happened, and blacks got a raw deal.
What I want is a price. What are the demands? What do they really want?
I suspect the reason the demands aren’t named is that the sticker shock is likely to be quite mighty. I recall reading some time ago (and I can’t remember where presently, but if any of my readers know, please reply in the comments) that one black leader suggested a one-time payoff of $1 million to each black citizen. That bill would come out to approximately $36 trillion, approximately double the GDP of the United States, and likely an impossible sum. But to be honest, I suspect the left’s real demands would be much more expensive, and involve something much more Marxist than a massive one-time payment. The left would probably want to ensure the racist right-wingers never got to express their racism again, and would need to be actively suppressed. Somebody has to be the kulaks when things go bad, after all.
In the end, it’s just like Barack Obama’s campaign of hope and change. What change? How much will it cost? Hopeful for whom? These are questions the left leaves unanswered. There are never any (accurate) price tags on their merchandise. And so, I’ve no interest in buying.
So – what exactly _do_ you lefties want? Never mind the fact that if you got what you were _really_ asking for, you would not likely survive it. In fact, that’s a guarantee.
Try asking your average proggy just what exactly do they think they’re progressing towards. The answers are usually just precious before they descend into paroxysms of spittle flecked name calling when they realize that they’ve been had.
They rarely think their demands through to the obvious long-term conclusions. If they did, they wouldn’t be leftists.
“What do Leftists want?”
Leftism is an inherently feminine approach to life.
Ergo, there is no answer to this question.
I admit, that got a chuckle out of me.
I suspect there are variations between individuals. One wants the world reshaped in his/her/its image. Another wants to be part of something bigger than him/her/its self and become more than they are thru that sense of belonging to a higher purpose, a purpose that makes its followers rise along with it.
In the end, it all seems to boil down to compensating for a sense of being inadequate for the demands of the world as it is, and thus wanting to see the world changed so that their place in it becomes a permanently elevated one. In other words, leftism becomes an exercise in vanity.
As a consequence, leftism is never a positive force. It is intended to fill those voids in a person’s wants and desires that remain unfulfilled. It’s self-centeredness boils down to filling urges of a base nature, which is why leftists can so easily look on someone else as less then a worthy person and fail to respect that person’s own needs, desires and boundaries.
This is why leftist movements degenerate into horrific violence and oppression. It is why societies that are taken over by leftist social, political, legal and economic structures become brutal and people treat each other callously, disrespectfully and cruelly. It is also why those societies become mired in poverty and stagnate in economic, artistic and cultural spheres.
Examples? The Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet Union are obvious ones, as are Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea and Laos. But there are older examples. The Dar Al Islam. The last two centuries of the Roman Imperium. Sparta. Assyria. When the State controls everything in the name of the people, the State controls the people for the sake of those who hold the reins of power in that State.
One must also realize that the typical leftist can never intelligently answer the question of what they want. Base needs are dominated by emotion, not rationality. They are dominated by the basic instincts and urges of the human being as animal, where logic cannot easily penetrate (especially with leftists, who are generally not inclined to reflect on things.)
Above all, they can’t squarely confront their thoughts, drives and urges on this matter, as it forces them to face the inadequacies – imagined or real – that they have. That’s why you can never come to reasonable terms with such people. They CAN’T give an inch, as it will undermine an extremely fragile and artificial foundation that supports their conscious persona. If that gives way, THEY collapse as INDIVIDUALS.
I honestly think that if you forced a typical leftist to confront themselves honestly, just about all of them would experience a psychological collapse that would require intensive psychiatric care. Some would even fall into a schizophrenic catatonia.
Think of people who are rescued from cults. They experience the same pathological syndrome as dedicated, committed leftists do, as they both suffer from Mystical Psychosis. Such people are shattered when they are forced to recognize the falseness of their cult beliefs. It takes years of care for them to recover, and some never do.
Very nicely put, Triple Sphinctered Wombat. As I would put it in my cruder way, leftists are essentially aggressive solipsists. They flatly refuse to recognize the reality of *other* people as such. Only the arrogant crap floating around in the heads of the leftists is important.
Vigorous honesty. Those who are unable to be vigorously honest with themselves always fail in any endeavor they pursue.
TSW,
“They CAN’T give an inch, as it will undermine an extremely fragile and artificial foundation” called their reality. You’ve hit it on the head and had a pretty good time doing it.
TSW,
I would counsel caution dealing with the esteemed guest. I have it on good authority that upon reading his prose 12 leading lexicographers committed suicide.
Quite true. Perhaps we should just let him rant to his heart’s content.
I must admit, I am guilty of engaging with him as much as TSW, though.
Dys & God King of the Fertile Crescent,
Thank you. 🙂 And I agree – engaging in ‘debate’ with such as the self-styled Irish Patrician is, in a sense, wasted effort. Like I said – they can’t give even a millimeter, as it would cause the house of cards upon which their beliefs are based to collapse, essentially unraveling the very fabric of their existence.
I nevertheless jousted with him for two particular reasons:
1. I have a ton of fun getting under the skin of these clowns. 😉
2. There can be no middle ground with such as they – it’s a zero sum game. Thus, it pays to exercise one’s skills in verbal combat from time to time and keep one’s knives sharpened and lightly oiled, so to speak.
Likewise. Padraig earlier tried to be a martyr and suggest I wanted him banned or something. I am desirous of no such thing. In the entire existence of my online presence, only one has been asked to leave (you may remember him here from some time ago). And even he had to go to very egregious lengths to get there.
Why would I not ban such folks? They are practice. We have to live with these cretins and it is good to be well-armed against their rhetoric and pseudo-dialectic.
“One must also realize that the typical leftist can never intelligently answer the question of what they want. Base needs are dominated by emotion, not rationality. They are dominated by the basic instincts and urges of the human being as animal, where logic cannot easily penetrate (especially with leftists, who are generally not inclined to reflect on things.)”
Indeed. This is why the positions are not consistent, and are prone to fits of sudden change. Perhaps today $1 million is sufficient to buy them off. But tomorrow, they feel that it’s not good enough. They decide they want more.
Since the positions are driven primarily by feelings and a sense of moral supremacy, no amount is sufficient to bury the grievance for good. The only thing that is accomplished is a temporary relief. They will soon feel aggrieved again and return with greater demands.
I say we pay them in Schrute bucks……
From the Little Golden Book of Psychology.
Sophomoric pap that, among other things, conflates socialism with totalitarianism and ignores the prosperous, stable and happy socialist countries that abound today.
Padraig – Here you go! Glad to discuss if you’re interested.
****************************************
Buchanan identifies four “sources or wellsprings of ideas that motivate extensions in the range and scope of collective controls over the freedom of persons to act as they might independently choose.” These four sources of collectivism are:
1) “managerial socialism” – that is, the idea that central planners can outperform the market at producing material prosperity
2) “paternalistic socialism” (or what in French is called “dirigisme.”)
3) “distributionalist socialism”
4) “parental socialism”
Source: http://cafehayek.com/2004/12/afraid_to_be_fr.html
Robert Arvanitis
Don’t know why you posted a squib instead of the article itself, but I found it and read it. Now, if you want to make your point, we can discuss it.
The point is that socialism tends towards totalitarianism. A 25% federal tax take from GDP is three months compulsory service. In war, or disaster, we may accept such compulsion. But unless there is a hard check on politicians and bureaucrats they will devolve into vote buying and empire building (respectively).
Elsewhere on this post I’ve laid out the increasingly subtle means government uses to take ever more.
The entire issue is that the harpoon of entitlements goes in easy, comes out hard. Or to quote WImpy, the public will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hand-out today.
Politicos exploit that weakness and need only that 51% voter, ignorant of economics, blind to the unseen costs.
> I recall reading some time ago (and I can’t remember where presently, but if any of my readers know, please reply in the comments) that one black leader suggested a one-time payoff of $1 million to each black citizen. That bill would come out to approximately $36 trillion, approximately double the GDP of the United States, and likely an impossible sum.
If you take the payoffs given to the black community since the 1960s and express them (including interest) in 2017 dollars, I suspect that the total is a significant fraction of $36T. Add in the cost spent by the north for the civil war and we’re well past $36T.
And how much do you assess as the value of 500,000 dead Union soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the war to free the slaves?
Not to mention the millions of white children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and on and on of those dead Union soldiers who were never born because their daddies and granddaddies and great-granddaddies and on and on were killed in the war against the South. Are radical blacks and other burbling morons planning on paying enormous reparations for these millions of unborn babies? No?
That rarely enters into their calculations, of course.
The usual figure cited for Union deaths in the American Civil War is around 320,000.
Quite so. And IIRC we have 300,000 Confederate deaths to add to that. The important figure would thus be 620,000 dead for both sides.
Someone has run the numbers. The average black gets a net of total benefits from the feds, state and local less total taxes of +$10,000 or so per year. The average white pays a net of about -$2,000 per year. Hispanics are somewhere in between but are net beneficiaries.
So, there’s your reparations. They were set up during the riots of the 1960’s to mollify blacks, and it has by an large worked. The deal seems to be unraveling now, and we may get another spasm of black rage and burning cities.
I would consider the $1 million dollar scheme if it was offered only for a 30-day period; those who accepted the offer were immediately stripped of citizenship for themselves and their minor children, required to depart the US permanently within 30 days, could never own property of any kind in the US nor ownership in US corporations, and their offspring were ineligible for US citizenship for 7 generations.
As long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton go with them, I am pleased.
The question is not what they want. It is ultimately what do you want and what price you are willing to pay to get it.
In my case, I want to be left alone to pursue my potential as much as I want to. As long as I don’t infringe on your pursuits and you don’t infringe on mine we shouldn’t have a problem.
If that isn’t plain enough for any leftist busybodies. Consider I am willing to expend any effort to up to and including the spilling of blood to be left alone.
I am in complete agreement with you on this. That is my demand: as much as is possible and practical, leave me the hell alone.
Of course, this is the one thing the left cannot permit. People cannot be left alone, because they are accounted as imperfect, and they must be made perfect through leftist ideological conditioning. If they were to leave people alone, some might secretly harbor bias or right-wing perspectives, and that cannot be permitted to stand.
If they knew how much blood those of us who just want to be left alone are willing to spill most would run and hide in mommy’s basement. The last scene in the movie Battan illustrates my commitment. In that scene Rod Taylor is the last surviving member of his unit. He is fighting from his own grave against thousands of invading Japanese. That is how far I would go to defend my freedom and the Constitution.
A little bit ironic, in the lore of Babylon 5, “What do you want” is the question the Shadow race asks, while the question the Vorlon race asks is “Who are you?” So there truly is an element of identity or identity politics to the battle between these two superior races.
Yeah, that video fits in with the typical Leftist assertion that we want it all back the way that it was, slavery included. Never mind that slavery is their game; I’ve yet to discern a difference between a plantation and a collective beyond loosened entry criteria.
Every time I see something that doesn’t have a price I can’t help but to quip, ” No price? Must be free then.” Nobody appreciates this.
Actually, freedom is the price of leftist ideology.
It does seem that way, doesn’t it?
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmivKyEY1Dk&w=560&h=315%5D
what I want: a working embed code.
https://youtu.be/ZmivKyEY1Dk
Indeed. It’s on the list of site upgrades.
Actually, the question should be what conservatives want for not exterminating the hard leftists, including neo-national socialists, and stuffing the remaining leftists into forced labor camps. I’d suggest a one-time payment of $1,000,000 per commie or socialist and an agreement to shut the fuck up forever with their arrogant crap.
Is this a scary perspective? Sure! Nonetheless, it’s still more pleasant than the horrors that the commies and the socialists love to inflict on real human beings.
> Imagine if you asked the salesman what the price of a thing was, and he replied “you have to pay me to find out.”
Don’t have to imagine. “[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it”.
Perfect example. I wish I’d thought of it.
I think there is no end game for the left; they don’t want to be satisfied because they would no longer be able to virtue signal and morally preen. It’s all about being a better person than those troglodytes who disagree with them.
Indeed. You can’t virtue signal superiority if there are no ideological kulaks to feel superior to.
It’s obvious, they just want you dead.
Some may, more charitably, merely want us enslaved or thrown in a gulag.
Well to answer the question, What do they want?; Even they don’t know. They don’t have a goal, they have a way of life (or religion). Anyway since I have already used the four big words ( one twice) in my vocabulary I must be brief.
PS. Your recent (ahem) esteemed guest is one of those who must have the “last word” no matter what, so any argument is a waste of time.
The term “Progressive” is pretty accurate. They want progressively more government, more power, and less freedom.
The is no goal, just the process of face-stomping ever harder.
Their notion of progress is indeed infinite. Nothing is ever good enough for them. There are always injustices to correct, biases to remove, etc… racism, et. al. really is their notion of Original Sin. Consider it their cultural appropriation from Christians.
The accusation of racism is something I’ve termed the “Magic Reset Button” since circa 1980.
Losing a debate? Don’t worry about supporting your position with facts, just call your opponent a racist.
It is the nuclear option in politics. A way to immediately distract from the issue at hand and completely nuke any possibility of agreement or reasonable compromise. It’s a ‘give me what I want or else’ weapon.
I believe we are in agreement.
“Racist” is the “Did you know you can save money using Geico?” distraction of the left. That they end up calling Jews “Nazis” and blacks “Klan sympathizers” makes no difference as long as they can distract from the flaws of leftism.
It’s a clever way of discussing the schism in our national dialog, but I think you’re missing the point. This conversation is not about a sales transaction. By complying with their demands, you are only rewarded with some peace and quiet, not absolution and resolution and forgiveness. And about that peace and quiet: It’s not a purchase, it’s rent.
The idea of it being a rent, not a purchase, is apt. Else they wouldn’t periodically come back for more money and/or benefits. But rent or purchase, they still decline to supply the actual price and act offended whenever we do so.
The price of the rent is an easy answer. They want everything you have, except your job.
Well put. I would add though that even being a progressive is not enough to ensure you will not be othered by fellow leftist who disagree work your thinking. On the left engaging intellectually has been framed as giving legitimacy to the alt-right and is seldom tolerated. Look at how progressives who offer helpful suggestions on issues such as The IX’s lack of due process or Islam’s treatment of gay people. Just agreeing with the left on the issues is not enough. Total obedience is required.
The right on the other hand suffers from a lack of a shared goal and a willingness to compromise to get there. Say what you will about the Republicans but they certainly have a lot of different views on repealing Obamacare, an issue many of them campaigned upon, and most other things. They can at least express differences of opinion, they just can’t get anything done. Of course, for a fiscally conservative libertarian that is usually one of their main good points. It is just frustrating when they have the power to easily do what they promised and then fail to do so.
Much of the right is composed of former leftists who were cast out for not moving to the left fast enough. Reagan himself famously explained that he didn’t leave the Democrat party, it left him.
I think ol’ Ayn Rand summed it up: “They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die.”
Quite true.
You hit the nail on the head. At the core of leftist belief is nihilism. They are for nothing. They are actually fascinated by destruction. Destruction of standards, civil society, systems – legal, economic, social, political, natural etc.
I have a friend who is a committed useful idiot. He is harmed by a leftist agenda just as much or more than the average person but his pretend sense of superiority is integrated into his leftist political beliefs. He argued with me how great Obamacare is. I had a major surgery last year and explained to him, in detail, how Obamacare had destroyed my healthcare, caused me to lose my doctor, lose three insurance policies – three years in a row and led to massive health costs I would never have incurred with my prior coverage. Once he lost that argument, he adopted the idiotic position that Obamacare stinks so we will just have to go to single payer which also stinks but we will all just have to accept the fact that we will have inferior care. I said no, that is not inevitable and I don’t accept that as an inevitable outcome.
My leftist friend would rather have us all suffer than accept the fact that his noxious political ideology should be scrapped.
As someone who used to have leftist leanings and who still knows a lot of otherwise decent people of this political persuasion, I think if you really boil down the progressivist motivation to three words, it’d be these: Heaven on Earth. “Heaven” being defined here as “100% gratification, 0% suffering”.
In the ultimate progressivist vision, everybody should be able to live a life where they can obtain what they want and need at the cheapest cost possible — ideally freely — and nobody should have to suffer anything they don’t want to, all the way down to the merest opportunity costs or inconveniences or even wounded feelings. A life of total material and psychological fulfillment, lived on one’s own terms, never answering to anyone you don’t want to, and ending when you want it to end. In my experience, almost everybody who truly buys into progressivism as an ideology does so because of indignant outrage at some example of injustice or arbitrary suffering, loss or deprivation, something that so hurt them personally or so moves their sympathy on behalf of another that their response is, “Never again!”
If you can catch someone of this ideology in a listening mood and point out that nothing in human nature suggests this is actually possible — that human sinfulness and basic physics means no true post-scarcity utopia will ever be achieved, or would in practice drive its human citizens insane if it were — the more rational sorts will acknowledge this, but will argue that it is only by aspiring to impossible ideals that we can achieve the closest possible approximation in reality. More ambitious or imaginative sorts may go full transhumanist and contend that “human nature” itself can and should be up for grabs, once we’re capable of the necessary technological modification (having never read Lewis’s The Abolition of Man and realized the deadly trap of this thinking). And those who have fallen too far into the tribalism, anger and paranoia inevitably engendered by unwillingness to grant an opponent any kind of moral ground will simply react with more of that anger and distrust; of course an enemy wants you to think your cause is lost or futile, what else would they say?
Step by step, “I want an end to suffering” morphs into “I want an end to those who think suffering inevitable”; step by step, “No more war!” morphs into “Just one more war — that we’ll win”; step by step, “Shut up and sit down, it’s our turn to play now” morphs into “Shut up and sit down, we’re declaring ‘Game Over’ — and we won.” Because, after all, what Morden was really asking, and what progressivism is really founded on, isn’t “What do you want?”, it’s “What do you think you deserve?” and “Who are you willing to hurt to get it?”
What do they want?
Not a solution. They want just to always be able to hold the accusation over your head.
It’s like having a crazy girlfriend who always has a past (perceived) injustice holstered
to lay on you as leverage.
She doesn’t want a solution or even an apology.
Just ever-present leverage.
Indeed. Permanent leverage is essentially perpetual power. And that is their true goal, as if the salesman’s aim was to have all of your money, forever.
Years ago I distilled all of modern politics down to Two Simple Rules:
(1) It’s always about the money.
(2) When somebody says “it’s not about the money”, that means it’s about a sh**-load of money.
Exactly this.
May we extend “money” to include power over others? Some see money as a scorecard. Others get off on control. That’s why we have, respectively, cronies and politicos.
Corollary – every time some media hack talks about business and money-greed, we must immediately punch back against politicos and power-lust. There is nothing noble about public service; it’s just a different currency for selfish gratification.
How much coke will a crackhead do? All of it.
What do they want? You answered that question in your last essay. Why they want it is the more interesting question. I suspect they, and us, really don’t have a good grasp on that.
“What is the end goal of the leftist?”
Depends on your leftist. Your casual leftist just wants to be part of cool clique and will toe whatever the party line is. Your hardcore leftist want the destruction of western civilization. The stupid hardcores think that once western civilization is felled that utopia will arrive. The smart harcores know that once western civilization is felled millions will die and a dark age of horrific brutality will arrive…. and guess what they don’t care.
As long as they get to run the gulags, they are fine with it.
Of course, as Yuri Bezmenov explained many moons ago, the intellectuals are merely useful idiots themselves. They will run nothing. They will be put up against a wall and shot by those even less moral than they.
The best answer to “What do you want?”
“I want to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I want to look into your lifeless eyes and wave… like this. Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?”
Vir Cotto, Babylon 5
In the 1920’s, those in the newly-formed Soviet Union found out that converting from opposing to supporting Communism, to be willing to go along with the new order was not enough. They got sent to the gulag or shot anyway. If we give up and let leftists have their way, it’ll happen here, too.
Something to consider:
The question “what do you want?” when posed to progressives/leftists is intended to solicit a rational, thoughtful and logical response from them.
This raises a further line of inquiry:
What is leftist ‘logic’ like?
Consider the query with the following facts in mind:
1. When Tim Tebow would kneel and pray before a game, the MSM and progressives frothed with vitriolic frenzy.
Now, when NFL players refuse to stand respectfully for the national anthem, they are……’patriots exercising their first amendment rights.’
2. Last week, the confederate flag was a symbol of racism.
This week, the flag carried by those who freed the slaves and crushed the Confederacy is….racist.
3. When people go to a stadium to watch a football game, they have many differences of opinion regarding politics, social issues and economic issues. But they put those all aside and together root for their home team. They stand for the national anthem together, as Americans, regardless of their differences.
When players reject the national anthem, they are telling everyone in the stadium “We will not stand beside you; we are morally superior to you.”
And the MSM and progressives say that when most NFL fans reject this stance, it means most NFL fans are racist and divisive.
4. When President Trump criticizes NFL management and kneeling players for not respecting the flag and anthem, and calls them to seek unity with all Americans around the flag and the anthem regardless of our differences, the MSM and progressives say that President Trump is a racist and white nationalist who is causing deep divisions in the national fabric.
5. When NFL players protest the national anthem, leftists say they are exercising their constitutional right to free speech.
When people show up at rallies or speaking events that celebrate free speech but the organizers or speakers are NOT leftists, antifa maoist red guards with weapons gang up on them and beat them into unconsciousness, throw molotov cocktails, fireworks bombs and bottles filled with urine and feces at them, try to stab police officers who are trying to protect the rally or speaking event attendees, and justify their actions by asserting that such people as the rally/speaking event attendees do not have the right to free speech.
This is, incidentally, why I find such enjoyment in teasing, taunting and trolling progressives. Their proclamations of leftist ‘logic’ are invariably, deliciously hilarious! 🙂
It is easy as an independent minded person to tell you what I want: 1) leave me alone to 2) make my own way and 3) don’t tax me so much. There, easy. Not demanding that the world change to revolve around me.
Just as a side note, I would love for a more detailed account of the black slavers who enslaved over a million white Europeans to be part of government school curriculum. I would also like to be declared Lord of All I see before me. I have as good a chance at the first as I do the second.
Since the “racist” tag is the end game of all leftists, it behooves one to know the history of the accuser. Just my dos centaboes.
You will never receive an answer to this question because it will inhibit their ability to move the goalposts. They don’t have a fixed, concrete price…as soon as you get to some price you imagine they want, they immediately will begin negotiating for something more. Because, ultimately, they want to fulfill the perpetual dream of an international socialist world order. That is, the ones who aren’t just tools and useful idiots want that. And in the US, they can’t admit that. So they shoot for something smaller, and incrementally increase their demands. It’s all about the death of Western civilization by a thousand paper cuts.
” have made peace with the incessant accusations and said something to the effect of “if you think that means I’m a racist then fine, I’m a racist. Now what?”
Sometimes, that’s all you can do. Many people are determined to see things a certain way and no amount of pleading or anecdotal evidence can sway them. The important thing is–how much is their opinion worth to you? Know how you really feel, know your own worth, and how you make those closest to you feel; that’s the important part, IMO.
Also, do you have any information on Nicki/Liberty Zone? That whole blog seems to have disappeared and gone into some sort of secret/locked WordPress site.
Apparently she got tired of blogging when people pointed out her TDS was approaching critical mass; according to her husband, she’s taking a break.
Another silly, logorrheic treatise. Truly, Dystopic, you have this genre locked.
Here are the (contrastingly cogent) answers to your questions:
What’s the price? – – – – Nothing. Your benefits will be literally priceless.
What do leftists want? – – – – Support of Constitutional guarantees; objective, rational analysis of all problems; and compassionate treatment of everyone. (At least, that’s what THIS “leftist” wants. I can’t speak for others.)
(I note that you and Triple Sphinctered Wombat [from Outer Space] have resumed stroking each other at my “expense”. You folks have GOT to get out more. Really!)
“Compassionate treatment of everyone.”
That is a humane view. It means caring for the weakest among us, balanced against burdens upon the rest.
We can set that balance with one question – how much of GDP do we permit government to control?
I respect that you do not speak for others, and will share my own answer in return.
There is no “limit”. The people will decide. The benefit/burden ratio will always be under discussion, just as it is now.
Since you have set the question of the limit of permissible government control of GDP, perhaps you could give us YOUR answer.
I thought you’d never ask. Glad to explain. But first, I expect your own, personal view in return. (Of course the people will decide, that’s exactly what DeToqueville feared.)
BACKGROUND
Right now, the federal government takes about 25%, with another 15% to state/municipal, for a total of 40% explicit.
Then there are the unfunded mandates and drag of regulation. HuffPo is not a conservative site, yet they put that a $2 trillion. Plus or minus, it’s not off an order of magnitude. But 2 on 20 is another 10% governmen. http://www.huffingtonpost.c…
Mercatus adds the DYNAMIC concept of GDP lost to regulation. That’s another opportunity cost, another hidden tax, just like inflation and the 7.65% “employer contribution” to FICA. (Workers don’t realize their nominal pay would be that much higher without FICA, so the median worker would take home about $54k, not just $50k, if markets weren’t distorted.)
Next the cumulative debt, years of annual deficits will soon become a crushing burden as interest rates rise.
Beside those items, there is the embedded rise in OASDHI. The demographics will drive costs in social security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Finally, no need to quantify the latest take: We already know healthcare is 17% of GDP and obamacare was a naked effort to get that into politicos’ hands.
SO whether taking and spending, or just pulling levers, that comes to 37% + 10% + 17% = way the hell too much.
And that is dangerously deceptive because it’s embedded, misattributed and deliberately hidden..
ANSWER
Government take is already beyond the sustainable level, which is no more than 28%. There are many forces that drive that, forces that no amount of goodwill or dirigisme can prevent.
DEFIANCE: Results like Hauser’s Law prove that black markets arise when taxation exceeds 20%. If you doubt that, just note the desperation with which government is trying to eliminate cash, and suppress untrackables like bitcoin.
INCENTIVES: Anyone who believes fines and prison work against crime cannot then deny incentives matter. Consider the decline in productive workers by any measure. And further understand the loss to society from forgone innovation. Entrepreneurs get billions and face endless demands to pay their “fair share.” But see here: http://www.nber.org/digest/oct04/w10433.html. Nordhaus shows that innovators collect only a small fraction of their value to society. That is, if someone gets $2 billion, it’s only because society gained $100 billion. Too many grasp for half or more of the entrepreneur’s share, when they’d destroy 50 times that value.
INFORMATION: There is no question that free markets have made the West prosperous and driven the drastic decline in global poverty: https://www.cato.org/blog/dramatic-decline-world-poverty. But free markets need free flow of information. Claude Shannon (q.v.) brought the equations of entropy into information theory. That math lets us quantify the loss of MARKET information by government regs. That is, when government distorts prices, we lose the value of that data and markets are worse off. When you FIX a price, you lose ALL the information in the curve. That is a terrible cost of blind government real dangerous sleeper issue. The failed USSR provides outstanding demonstrations: Blat, tolkach, and the hilarious story of ruble vs. kopek.
IATROGENIC DISEASE: The very size of government drives a vicious cycle. The bigger government gets, the greater the rewards of cronyism. Today, a senator is a better investment than a factory, and that very cronyism drives ever increasing (and misaligned) government. Here we distinguish the worthy rich (see incentives above) from the unworthy/cronies. Don’t blame capitalists. Wherever markets are not in fact free, it is entirely the blame of the DoJ and FTC. IF those captured regulators don’t do the job, fire them all and hire those who WILL ensure the premises of free markets (i.e. many small, independent agents, free flow of information, no tariffs, subsidies, distortions…).
SUMMARY: The equations are chaotic – beyond a tipping point there is always the next Venezuela.
“There is no limit.”
This is Progressive thought in a nutshell. There is no such thing as enough.
You are absolutely correct.
But I gave a complete and thorough answer.
And since Padraig honestly noted he does not speak for other leftists. we owe him an opportunity to give his own number. Or not. in which case the matter is proven.
You provided no “contrastingly cogent” answers.
I spoke of a particular rhetorical weapon. Namely, certain historical injustices and grievances. I expect a price (either in dollars and/or specific policies) which, once paid, means we can bury those particular grievances and mark them as paid and compensated for. You provided nothing. The man who explained that $1 million per black person was sufficient recompense at least provided something concrete (if, perhaps, ridiculous).
You did not understand the post, or the question. You provided only vague platitudes like “and compassionate treatment of everyone.” You did not define this. Is compassionate treatment 50% of my income? 100% of it? Is compassionate treatment absolute income equality? Is it a guaranteed income of X dollars? What is it?
This is precisely the beef I have with you and others like you in this respect. You offer nothing. You keep making demands. Today, you want a little more money. Tomorrow, you want even more. Always more. Today you may want certain racial hiring preferences. Tomorrow you want more. What is sufficient? What is your end game? Do you want absolute parity in gender and racial representation at all levels of employment? Do you want absolute average income parity across demographics? Do you want all the land taken from Native Americans to be returned, perhaps? Or would a certain percentage be sufficient?
What?
And you, being the utter boneheaded failure and waste of oxygen you are, answer my serious question with a pithy bit of Progressive agitprop boilerplate about being compassionate. You are less than useful to this discussion. Your presence in this thread is worse than a mere waste of time. I feel dumber for having read your reply.
(Dys old man – presume from the levels of indentation you are speaking to Padraig and not your humble interlocutor.)
Yes. It was a reply to him. Nested comments sometimes stack lower after 5 levels.
Quote:
” I feel dumber for having read your reply.”
—————————————
You are not mistaken – – – but it is a developmental consequence rather than a response to stimuli.
(The reminder of your post has been answered in other replies.)
At least you are open about your hostility and airs of superiority.
You know, sooner or later this thing is going to south on all of us. I’d rather it didn’t, of course, I’ve no desire to America become the next Yugoslavia. But the fascinating thing about your kind is that they cannot allow us a place of our own. If you believe all these things you say, why are you here, in America? You could move to Europe, or Canada, or if you’re really into government control, a place like North Korea, China, or Cuba.
There are many places in this world where people live the way you want them to. And yet, here you are. Like Plato singing the praises of the Spartans, but keeping his feet planted firmly in Athens… here you are.
Now, perhaps you say to yourself “this is my home, why should I leave it?” If so, I grant that. So let us divide the country, then. You and yours take your piece of it, and we’ll have ours. You can centrally-plan everything, and we’ll do things our way. You can do all the things you want and more. And you’d have us to compare to. Run the social experiment, observe the results.
Ah… except there’s a catch, isn’t there? You can’t be wrong. You categorically must be right. Nobody can be permitted to show you up. As Venezuela swirls the drain, so shall you, and a part of you must worry about that. But if there are no islands of prosperity to measure against, then so much the better. It wasn’t your fault that the people starved, or the economy swirled the drain, or that you had to import millions of Muslim refugees to replace your childless, aging population. You weren’t really wrong. The gods were against you. Or the hidden capitalist saboteurs. Or the locusts. Whatever, the excuse doesn’t matter. All that matters is you can go to the grave believing you were right. And in the end, that’s what matters to you, right? That you feel smart?
As I have mentioned, I am a “L”iberal, which means that my polestar is the protection of individual rights, especially as enumerated in the Constitution. So your assertion that I have ANY affection for totalitarianism is ludicrous. I support majority rule under the Constitution. Period.
Additionally, “I” like the United States as is, with all those contentious people asserting their opinions, none of which will be allowed to find their way into law until they pass Constitutional muster. Sorry that you are disenchanted.
There is, of course, no way that I would assent to having a piece of the United States carved out for you to create your stone-hearted utopia. May I suggest an alternative, as you did for me? Get yourselves organized and found a colony somewhere at the north or south poles. The climate and your personal warmth will be synergistic (and the nations of the world will all we so glad that you are not-one-of-them that they are unlikely to object.)
Hey Pat! I offer focused questions, cite sources, have deep knowledge but also impartial presentation of facts… What MORE do you want in an interlocutor?
Vituperation? Not my style.
Or perhaps hard questions put you out of sorts?
No, I suppose you wouldn’t assent to that. Even if we were to take your “advice” and colonize the poles, if we did so successfully you would soon demand that we pay our fair share and again embrace socialism, because otherwise we are your moral inferiors.
All of your arguments boil down to this one accusation, this one point you harp on again and again: if you don’t support socialism, you are heartless. It’s the simplest of Kafka traps, another variant of weaponized empathy. But it is made all the more convincing for its simplicity, especially when backed up with social punishments for non-compliance. I’ve no doubt that it wins many converts to your cause. The problem you will have here is that this blog is dedicated to exposing this lie above all others. And we all know this. You, me, everyone else here. Francis tried to explain it to you, but you weren’t listening. We know. On a college campus with young, impressionable minds, this lie may succeed. Here, it will not.
But you serve a purpose, nonetheless. Your dishonesty, your moral relativism, your preening, your snark and airs of superiority all mark you, so that we may better know your kind. You are a demonstration of weaponized empathy in action. You are practice. And for that, I thank you.
@Robert Arvanitis
Quote:
“Hey Pat! I offer focused questions, cite sources, have deep knowledge but also impartial presentation of facts. Vituperation? Not my style.”
————————————-
Of course, my reply was to Dystopic, and his suggestion that I leave the country, not to you. Since the blog’s posting references are inexact, I will hereafter use the “@” if I remember.
As for your self-serving description of your behavior, your opinion is noted.
Limitless sacrifices demanded; unspecified benefits promised…to arrive at an unspecified future date.
Don’t you just love Leftists’ outreach methods?
This man Padraig is so strange. If I boiled down my post to its most basic form, it would be something like ‘Leftists never tell us the real price, or what we get for that price.’ And here he is, telling us that there is no limit to the price, and that the benefits are unspecified.
And he thinks this proves me wrong. It’d be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
God bless for your attempt to be concise!
The fact that averred outcomes cannot be predicted with exactitude doesn’t make them fraudulent. Just as stating economic propositions as if they were immutable laws doesn’t make them true.
Hardly “limitless”. The people will decide.
Francis is right. You really do want a sociopolitical blank check, don’t you? No grievance ever buried, no injustice ever balanced by justice. No debt ever repaid. More, always and forever.
Coercive Utopians are like that, Dys. Ironically, the sincere ones, the ones who genuinely believe that unlimited government power can create paradise, are worse than the venal ones. C. S. Lewis said it memorably:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some time be satisfied; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own consciences.”
So if cutting off one of your limbs doesn’t do the job, they’ll happily and without moral qualms demand a second…and a third…
“When you see someone approaching with the fixed intention of doing you good, run for your life!” — Henry David Thoreau
Quote:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”
———————————————-
An inapt quotation, Francis Porretto. While you may consider yourself a victim since your purse may be lightened by government social welfare legislation, the beneficiaries of those programs are not.
Sloppy.
Advocates of those programs are scamsters. So are many of the beneficiaries.
Son, you can make any demands you like. At this point, my response is my middle fingers. You’re simply an annoying idiot, and if it was my blog where I had the server tools, I’d ban you.
Silliness.
Never claimed that. Never implied it. You SEE it because your solipsism has destroyed your perception.
Could we get Steven Schwartze to come over and give a more intelligent leftist argument? Padriag isn’t even worth the effort to respond to.
Yeah, he was a good foil back when Tom K. had that column going.
Padraig, you have revealed yourself to be a villain far too clearly to disguise it, You think you’re clever? You aren’t even verbally adroit.
A government transfer program, which inherently robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. the bureaucrats who administer it, and the vendors who sell to it. But it is not charity. It isn’t even constructive when one factors in every government transfer program’s inherent creation of moral hazards and incentives to idleness. If you were genuinely inclined to charitable action, you’d undertake it personally — and you’d personally insure that your contributions were used wisely.
You are wasting your time here. Dystopic’s readers are far too intelligent to be taken in by your supercilious sanctimony. Your character seriously needs improvement. I pray that you undertake it — and that God allows you the time required to complete it.
Padraig,
Francis is a kinder, more godly man than I. When he says he prays that you undertake such improvement, he means it. When he tells us that he insures his contributions are used wisely, he does so. If there is a man out there who I would most endeavor to emulate with regards to charitable behavior and concern for his fellow man, it is Francis. I admit I fall short of God’s grace in this, at times. I do charitable work for kids with cancer, and I do environmental cleanups and volunteer work in my community. But I could do more, and I could do better. And I could spend more time connecting with God.
But your accusations of moral delinquency make no impact on me, nor do I think they make much impact on anyone here, because we know and understand that charity must be done personally, we must invest ourselves in it, to love God, to love our fellow man, and to do right by him. Handing someone I’ve never met a pile of money may do him no good at all. For some, such as those addicted to drugs, the money may harm them. Indeed, it could kill them. Or it could merely kill their spirit, their ambition, their drive. I don’t know, and neither do you.
But a man you know, a man you see, someone who is a part of your community… that is very different. Then you can see the results of your help, your ministrations. Maybe even then it will not always work out, but the odds are better.
I will try to be like Francis, and pray for you, and hope that you do better. It is harder for me than for him, for I am younger, more impetuous, and my relationship with God needs more work. But I will try…
Mr. Porretto:
You point on Peter and Paul recalls a note I wrote some time ago. Peter/Paul is only the first of nine steps of ever more subtle redistribution:
1. Tax & spend
2. High nominal rates, unequal deductions (aka “tax expenditures.”)
3. Deficits; borrow to tax the unborn
4. Slices to hide the aggregate take. Personal income, corporate income, payroll, real estate, sales tax
5. Unfunded mandates.
6. Inflation
7. Fake insurance schemes
8. Outsourcing – cronies licensed to amerce the public in return for taxes and contributions.
9. Theft; e.g. nationalize private pensions for promise of an extra $50/month social security. Or more recently, “bail-ins” of depositors.
Francis Porretto’s claim that my support of social welfare through taxation cannot be charitable is farcical. If I decrease my substance to help another, by whatever means, it is charity.
By the same measure, your own claim that only personal charity is charitable is similarly unsupportable. You finesse this claim in order to portray your own personal charitable endeavors, implying thereby that those of us who approve of government-administered charity do not perform similar acts.
Ridiculous. In my experience, virtually all my fellow-volunteers (at least in those charities that serve people) share my support of social welfare legislation.
That conflates robbery and charity. For taxes are collected at the point of a gun.
And a government is simply an entity which has a monopoly on violence in a territory.
If you are of a religious persuasion, Pat, you understand that the Good Samaritan paid out of his own purse. To be amerced by the Romans on the other hand is neither commendable nor of spiritual worth.
“If I decrease my substance to help another, by whatever means, it is charity.”
Not if it’s at gunpoint, and you thus cannot say no. When you involve government, you are involving force. When you involve force, you remove choice. When you have no choice, it is no longer charity. Instead it is merely taxation. Tax is not charity.
“…implying thereby that those of us who approve of government-administered charity do not perform similar acts.”
You are charitable to the level of such “similar acts” as you perform. I have no knowledge of what charitable acts you do or do not conduct in your own personal life.
@Robert Avantis & Dystopic
Very well then, for me, taxes taken from my purse to which I have assented by my vote are charitable contributions – – – and for the two of you – – – who will not – – – they are just a tax.
I suppose you will next want a tax deduction for your contribu….Wait, you DO want to take your state and local off the federal! So let’s end that inappropriate anomaly where efficient states subsidize the spendthrifts.
Back to reality. That’s as foolish as saying it’s assault to hit me , but it’s not assault to hit you because you’re masochist. Taking at the point of the gun is taking.
And that is why the PSA against the deadly addictive drug of soaring entitlements is SO important.
Regarding charity, the great rabbi, Moshe ben Maimon aka Maimonides, in his code of Jewish law, under “Givings to the poor”, listed a hierarchy of charitable giving. He never mentions goverment or taxes and also raises the possibility that those who are in charge of disbursing communal funds may not be honest.
Mishneh Torah, Laws of Charity, 10:7–14
There are eight levels of charity, each greater than the next.
[1] The greatest level, above which there is no greater, is to support a fellow Jew by endowing him with a gift or loan, or entering into a partnership with him, or finding employment for him, in order to strengthen his hand until he need no longer be dependent upon others . . .
[2] A lesser level of charity than this is to give to the poor without knowing to whom one gives, and without the recipient knowing from who he received. For this is performing a mitzvah solely for the sake of Heaven. This is like the “anonymous fund” that was in the Holy Temple [in Jerusalem]. There the righteous gave in secret, and the good poor profited in secret. Giving to a charity fund is similar to this mode of charity, though one should not contribute to a charity fund unless one knows that the person appointed over the fund is trustworthy and wise and a proper administrator, like Rabbi Chananyah ben Teradyon.
[3] A lesser level of charity than this is when one knows to whom one gives, but the recipient does not know his benefactor. The greatest sages used to walk about in secret and put coins in the doors of the poor. It is worthy and truly good to do this, if those who are responsible for distributing charity are not trustworthy.
[4] A lesser level of charity than this is when one does not know to whom one gives, but the poor person does know his benefactor. The greatest sages used to tie coins into their robes and throw them behind their backs, and the poor would come up and pick the coins out of their robes, so that they would not be ashamed.
[5] A lesser level than this is when one gives to the poor person directly into his hand, but gives before being asked.
[6] A lesser level than this is when one gives to the poor person after being asked.
[7] A lesser level than this is when one gives inadequately, but gives gladly and with a smile.
[8] A lesser level than this is when one gives unwillingly.
Mr. Metesky:
Thank you for sharing the levels of giving. As you note, any gift is a blessing, even it reluctant, because it is done privately.
I note with interest that the anonymous fund is for the benefit of the GOOD poor. For personal charity, that is for the donor to decide. If we give via organized charities, it is up to the charity to decide who is deserving.
Alas, when government taxes and spends on welfare, it is too often without clear determination of merit. Speaker Newt Gingrich struck a deal with Clinton back in 1996, which reformed welfare and had work requirements. When Obama took office, he removed the standards; we can only suppose he did not like the concept of “deserving.”
This is well taken, sir.
I cannot add more to this.
And if you look at what Christ said about charity in the Gospels, He laid down that system exactly.
Dearest little padraig,
Translating your verbal diarrhea into its true meaning:
“Let’s have all the people give the state control over absolutely EVERYTHING! That way, the State will be like the perfect Mommy and Daddy, and the State will transform the World to meet all our desires! The Sun will turn into a big dollop of vanilla ice cream, the clouds will be tufts of cotton candy, and the grass of the fields will be stems of chocolate! And EVERYONE will get a pony for their 10th birthday! WHOOPEEEEEE!”
I bet you’re real good with Santa and the Easter Bunny too, aren’t ya, padraig?
Please, padraig – CONTINUE. You’ve made my day! LOL!
(And for the rest of us, who can think more deeply and lucidly than evidently 5 yr old padraig – a reminder of the kind of lesson that such as he will never, ever learn:)
TSW,
Perhaps:
https://youtu.be/bNCT6pA5I9A
LOLOL! Well chosen, Oh God King of the Fertile Crescent!
And you are right – he CAN’T either defend his creed or bare to challenge it himself, for subconsciously he knows what lies on the other side of that line. 😉
Do you never tire of showing off your neoteny, Triple Sphinctered Wombat?
The answer, “The people will decide”, is sufficient and complete. IF the dire scenarios which Robert Arvanitis predicts begin to play out, the people will have the choice of correcting the policies that have enabled it, or not. That’s the way a Liberal republic works. (One does note that some of your beliefs are contradicted by the reality of other prosperous, stable countries whose govenments’ revenues/exepenses already amount to more than 50% of GDP, and your idea about “iatrogenic disease” is mere fanciful inference.)
If I didn’t answer your question about “compassion”, it is because it cannot be quantified. My personal opinion is that one who, under the economic conditions that prevail in our country today, argues that the poor SHOULD suffer and die as an incentive to their working harder is lacking in that quality.
You haven’t delivered one price; one demand. You haven’t answered our question with even the slightest shred of dialectic. All you do is blow your holier-than-thou moral trumpet as if you are some kind of superior form of life because you don’t like seeing people suffer. Congratulations, you’ve ascended to the bare minimum required of humanity. But in another sense, you have gone beyond my wildest expectations. Truly, I thought you would deliver some kind of price, some impossible demand that would grant you and your ilk perpetual interest on the debt. But you didn’t even do this. Instead, you offered nothing but empty platitudes.
You say compassion can’t be quantified. What you really meant, because you are intellectually lazy, is that you are unable to define it. But I can help you.
You want to know what compassion is? Compassion is a German dissident hiding his Jewish neighbors in his basement from a tyrannical government. Compassion is seeing an estranged family member on your front porch, with nowhere to go, and giving him a place to stay, burying bygones for the sake of family. Compassion is volunteering to help kids with cancer realize a dream they would otherwise never live to see. Compassion is seeing seeing a drug addict asking for money and saying no, because next time the overdose could kill him, and instead trying to get him the help he needs to overcome the addiction. Compassion is learning that a friend is considering taking his own life because of a terrible divorce, and instead convincing him to come to the bar, have a beer, and talk through it because he is your friend, and you care for him. Compassion starts with the world you know; the people in your life. It doesn’t start thousands of miles away in a Congressional chamber.
You try to lecture me about compassion, but your compassion is a false, hollow thing. You want to rife around in my pockets, take some money, and hand it to someone who fits some kind of politically correct demographic narrative, then declare yourself to be the champion of the oppressed. No, worse, you don’t even propose to do it yourself. You propose to make someone else take it. How pathetic, how utterly worthless is that?
I spit on your outsourced government “compassion”. It is nothing of the sort. It is an ego-stroking endeavor for you and others like you. So you can go sound the moral trumpets before you, so you can signal how good and virtuous you are, how you are a part of the right side of history. And then you can do a whole lot of nothing about it. You don’t have to be the one to see dying children. You don’t have to host the refugee in your home. You don’t have to care for sick, or clean the garbage from the worst parts of town. You’re too good for that, you see. That’s for little people; people who aren’t on the “right” side of history.
Padraig’s version of thoughtful, intelligent, rational, fact-based dialogue:
Quote:
“I spit on your outsourced government “compassion”. It is nothing of the sort. It is an ego-stroking endeavor for you and others like you.”
—————————-
The psychopath’s weltanschauung. You are incapable of visualizing motivations other than your own.
Lovely Padraig,
You are employing a behavior known in psychiatry circles as ‘projection’, where you project your own failings upon another to relieve yourself of the guilt of not being able to resolve the issue with your own devices.
Would you like some ice cream, honey bunny? You’ll feel better, and you can eat it while watching your favorite cartoons!
HAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!
Padraig, If you really believe that, why are you here?
I believe Dys that you have been invited to leave and since this is your blog that would entail something rather unusual, at least for this world. Since I do have some experience with Old Testament Prophets (they are a testy bunch) I await.
Sennacherib, I don’t know what the hell Padraig wants. But he’s done a nice job of illustrating my points.
Even among the true believers who populate this site, there may be a few who have occasionally thought that there might be something psychologically askew with someone whose callous disregard for his countrymen is so relentless.
I am here to give a name to the disorder that they sense. It may be enough to convince them to free themselves from the grip of the frigid god of selfishness and to turn to the warm embrace of their common humanity.
More moral trumpeting.
“It may be enough to convince them to free themselves from the grip of the frigid god of selfishness and to turn to the warm embrace of their common humanity.”
Get a grip, man. If you’re so unselfish, tell you what. Give all your money to charity – every penny (otherwise you are selfish). Then remove yourself from the planet. You are using oxygen that could be better utilized by something else. I dunno… an amoeba or something.
Dys,
“But he’s done a nice job of illustrating my points.” Yep.
Dys,
To elaborate. You were close to the truth with your moral trumpet remark. His audience is neither this place or anyone here, nor is the argument itself of any importance, at least to him.
@ Dystopic
Quote:
“Get a grip, man. If you’re so unselfish, tell you what. Give all your money to charity – every penny (otherwise you are selfish). Then remove yourself from the planet. You are using oxygen that could be better utilized by something else. I dunno… an amoeba or something.”
——————————————–
Get a grip, man, INDEED!
@ Sennacherib
Quote:
“I believe Dys that you have been invited to leave and since this is your blog that would entail something rather unusual, at least for this world.”
—————————————–
Well, heck, Sennacherib, I didn’t mean that he should stop blogging here! He can still post from the polar regions. In fact, a move from the the relentlessly sunny and shade-free middle of the Pacific Ocean (from whence, according to the time stamp, he currently posts) might sooth his fevered brain.
Point of information on time stamps.
The current display is 2:35 AM when it is 10:35 PM EDT.
That’s four hours AHEAD of east coast, or somewhere near the Azores Islands off the coast of Portugal..
Wrong timezone dumbass.
@ Robert Arvantis
A proof of the modesty of my intellectual gifts (infra.)
About f’ing time.
Wonderful padraig,
Some facts for you (though your tiny head will reject them:)
Those nations who control more than 50% of their country’s GDP are not nearly as prosperous as you pretend. The fact is that they are all as poor or poorer than the economically weakest states in the Union.
Voila:
https://fee.org/articles/most-of-europe-is-a-lot-poorer-than-most-of-the-united-states/?action=ribbon
and
https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-richer-middle-class-much-europe
(Aaaand padraig sticks his head in the sand in 3, 2, 1…..)
Whether or not the living standard of the socialist Scandinavian countries is higher or lower than ours is irrelevant. They are, nonetheless, stable and prosperous. (And also much HAPPIER than US citizens.*)
(You ought really to run your comments by one of your more cognitively enabled colleagues before you post them. It would save you further embarrassment.)
*”World Happiness Report”, (United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network)
http://worldhappiness.report
We can quantify GDP per capita, but not hedonic outcomes. Bhutan is often cited as the “happiest” and the UN is glad upon request to deliver results disparaging America.
So how about you turn your intellect my way, have a look at my latest, and compare your number to mine.
@ Robert Avantis
“So how about you turn your intellect my way, have a look at my latest, and compare your number to mine.”
——————————————
Oh, come now, Robert Avantis, such childish solipsism would embarrass a high-school sophomore and is cringeworthily embarrassing to see embodied in a full-grown man.
Besides, I have certainly never boasted of MY modest intellectual gifts – – – and extraordinary ability is not called for on this blog.
But please, post your number, don’t let my demurral inhibit you.
Reread my detailed explanation, with sources, for the 28%. Beyond that, economic activity goes underground, incentives are misaligned, prices are distorted and the free market no longer delivers adequate information foroptimal allocation of resources,
YOU must now tell us if there is ANY government share of GDP that is too high. The question is NOT “could people be so foolish as to vote government more.” That’s been done repeatedly, in many places, and failed every time.
The question is how much would discomfit YOU, Padraig? So tell me yours.
@ Robert Arvantis
Your “detailed explanation, with sources” is an economic proposition. Economic theory is called the “dismal science” because it has historically produced sequential economic predictions that are as dire as yours. Its probative value is unimpressive.
I have already answered your question about the percentage of government outlays compared to GDP. As I recall, I said that I don’t know what “too high” a number would be, nor, despite your references, do you.
HAHAHAAAAA!
Oh, poor padraig.
So:
1. You’re telling me your assertion that countries which spend more than 50% of their GDP thru public finances are better off socially and economically is garbage. YOU YOURSELF are saying one of your arguments is either incorrect or irrelevant.
Holy fart balloons, son! You have pretzel’d yourself!
2. Scandinavian countries are HAPPIER with their socialist nirvanas? Hmmm, let’s see:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-09/one-lifelong-socialist-norwegians-perspective-trump
3. If scandinavians were so happy, why are more leaving now than ever before?
https://www.thelocal.se/20160107/more-swedes-than-ever-are-moving-abroad
So, my little padraig:
Now that you yourself have proven to us you don’t have a leg to stand on, what does that mean about the legitimacy of your entire theology?
If your socialist political, economic and social policies worked, why do people FLEE from them?
PROVE to us that yours is the truest and best path of history.
To support your counter-argument, you have posted a reference from an alt-right advocacy organ and an article that suggests the Swedes are moving to countries where it’s warmer.
The first source is discreditable and the second has nothing to do with politics.
Please take my advice an run your work by someone with a better concept of what constitutes an authoritative reference before you burden innocent readers with it.
I toldja, Pat!
MY sources are all academic or government (including media reporting on those two).
Why not address the REAL issue? Hmmm?
Robert,
Padraig has not and likely will not accept any source which contradicts his beliefs. Not even for theoretical discussion.
True, but hey, it’s a bit of intellectual exercise.
Besides, I’d love to ask him exactly WHY we should spend money on anything EXCEPT defend the borders, keep civil peace, enforce contracts.
Bet he can’t name even one, other than “Because!”
In contrast, we can lay out a whole host of reasons – moral, true diversity of populace, needless dead weight loss due to misadventure, and so forth.
@Robert Arvanitis
In a democratic republic, Robert Arvanitis, the people decide what authority they want to hand over to government (within the bounds of their founding documents.) In THIS country, the people have decided that they want the government to do lots of things besides defending them from the Indians.
That’s why it should do so, regardless of what Right-Wing savants believe.
Very early on in our exchange, I noted DeToqueville’s fear for democracy, once the people learned (or are duped into) voting money for themselves.
And THAT my friend is why we must educate voters on the long-term and unseen costs of their actions.
Surely you don’t disapprove of public service messages that some drugs are both addicting and damaging?
Well this is the PSA against even more devastating economic folly.
***********************************************************************************
BTW, perhaps you saw my sidebar with Dys? What reason(s) can YOU offer for spending on more than protect borders / keep civil peace / enforce contracts.
Assume I demand YOUR reasons for spending tax dollars on welfare. Do NOT say “they voted.”
Show me how you’d make the case .
@ Robert Avantis:
Notwithstanding DeToqueville’s fear, “because a majority voted for it”, is the only legitimizing factor required in a LIberal republic. I certainly have no objections to people voicing their opinions as to the proper vote and, as all Liberals, encourage their freest exchange.
As to what the proper role of government is, it is that role which the citizens decided that it should play, within the restrictions of the Constitution, the “reason” being that that is the principle upon which our republic is founded.
Alas, another non-answer.
Question 1: Bernie Sanders wants a healthcare plan, that will cost $17 trillion, 100% of GDP.
Do you, Padraig, support Bernie? If not, why not?
Question 2: A fellow citizen objects to such welfare. What to you say, to justify it?
The questions are clear, and poignant. This time you owe me the courtesy of answers.
And now, since it is a school night – adieu.
“To support your counter-argument, you have posted a reference from an alt-right advocacy organ and an article that suggests the Swedes are moving to countries where it’s warmer. The first source is discreditable and the second has nothing to do with politics.”
Translation: when confronted with facts and reality, you stick your head in the sand.
“Please take my advice an run your work by someone with a better concept of what constitutes an authoritative reference before you burden innocent readers with it.”
Translation: “NAH NAH NAH, I’M NOT LISTENING TO YOU, YOU POOPYHEAD!”
“Notwithstanding DeToqueville’s fear, “because a majority voted for it”, is the only legitimizing factor required in a LIberal republic.”
Incorrect once again. There are LAWS protecting private property. In your ‘socially and economically just’ world, the majority decides who gets what and it what quantity. In other words, THERE IS NO PRIVATE PROPERTY. The largest and/or most powerful group coercively controls the individual, and civil order gives way to mob rule. To put it more plainly: the rule of Law gives way to the rule of MEN.
We realize you disguise (both to us and even yourself) your envy and avarice in a cloak of concern for humanity wrapped in a pseudo-intellectual, sophistic bow.
I have now stripped all that away.
We also understand why you will not squarely face the fraud that you are and the hollowness of your beliefs; it would, after all, end your existence and reduce you to a quivering, babbling wreck.
And because of this, you will forever be ultimately defenseless against my jibes, taunts and trolls, as you are in the end utterly unable to mount an effective defense.
@ Robert Arvanitis
First clarifying that that is a ridiculous hypothetical, I WILL say that I would probably not support it because 100% would almost certainly cause hyperinflation.
Well I guess a thing can be BOTH ridiculous AND real: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/20/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-all-wrong-for-america-marc-siegel-column/679134001/
You correctly note that 100% of GDP is untenable. So your answer is somewhere between 28-99% of GDP.
Now for the second part – what do we say to someone who doesn’t want any welfare? We can insult them, but that doesn’t get us votes.
What are your best, most convincing reasons for a social safety net?
@ Robert Arvanitis
First, let’s be clear that the $17 billion dollar figure you have pasted on Sander’s plan is an utterly fictitious exaggeration, overstating it by a factor of more than 5. (We don’t want the true believers herein to start quoting it as fact [like the “Dearborn, MI institutes sharia law” phenomenon.]) You also understate the GDP by over $2 trillion, losing an opportunity to exaggerate the cost of the plan by even more.
Your second paragraph is unclear. If you mean what do we say to a citizen who is entitled to receive “welfare” but who doesn’t want it, the answer is, “Nothing”. He simply need not apply. If the question is what do we say to a citizen who doesn’t want a social welfare program for his countrymen to exist, we say, “If a majority of your fellow citizens feel the same way that you do, we won’t institute it.”
My argument for a “social safety net” is that it is an appropriate endeavor for the US government to guarantee that none of its citizens live in degradation if it can afford to prevent it.
We have elicited the fact that there IS, at last, a limit beyond which you would not redistribute. That’s good.
Next, we agree there ought to be a safety net and we further agree there is a limit/ To give to one we must necessarily take from another. A humane society balances BOTH the benefits AND the costs.
Now for our final piece, the keystone: you say welfare is “appropriate.” That’s jumping to the conclusiion.
MAKE the case! WHY should a citizen vote for more taxes? WHY welfare at all?
@ Triple Sphinctered Wombat
[“sigh”]
Your fantasy only occurs if the Constitution (which we Liberals revere) is overturned.
@ Robert Arvanitis
Quote:
“MAKE the case! WHY should a citizen vote for more taxes? WHY welfare at all?”
—————————————–
Empathy? Compassion? National pride?
There is only a small cohort of the population to whom these reasons must be made explicit, Robert.
As the redistribution increases, the more important it becomes to make the case. Empathy/compassion get you only so far.
We already have food stamps, homeless shelters and Medicaid. You and I may agree on a bit more, but lots of people would not, ESPECIALLY those who are already close to that level. And as the welfare grows, ever more people say “why should I struggle for what others get for free?!”
Gimme one more try, reasons that are not purely emotional. In return I’ll share my view on the broader case. OK?
“Empathy? Compassion? National pride?
There is only a small cohort of the population to whom these reasons must be made explicit, Robert.”
I’ve learned a lot from you, Padraig. Your dialect of Newspeak is fascinating.
For instance, in the above you imply that Robert is not a nice person, because he is part of a “small cohort” of people who do not just get it. Thus he is not empathetic, and thus not a good person. You also imply that he is unpopular, his opinions are unpopular, and he is somehow defective for not agreeing with you. Isolate the target in Alinsky fashion.
Earlier on, you replied to Wombat with the word “we” instead of “I”. This was also instructive. You attempted to escape by telling us that you were showing his replies to friends, but I know precisely what you were attempting to do. You wished to make an example of Wombat, and see if you could turn one or more of us against him by painting yourself as reasonable, and him as an enemy. When confronted with this, you attempted to escape. You only did this once. This was another Alinsky move. Another attempt at isolation.
You fail to define compassion in any meaningful sense, and fail to deliver any concrete numbers, costs, or even rough ballpark estimates of what our compassionate duty may require of us. But you are somehow quite certain that, whatever that duty may be, we do not meet it. And you continue to harp on it, because it’s the only real successful weapon your kind has ever had.
Dys, the only reason to debate Paddy (or any other Leftist) is the same reason a cat plays with a mouse…. and frankly, he’s not very entertaining even at that level.
But he’s a perfect example of why a civil war is inevitable: either you surrender to him, or he’s perfectly fine with having the government kill you.
Since we lack compassion and empathy, in his view, it is morally permissible to kill us or send us to the gulag.
It’s a lighter version of SJWs calling us all Nazis. When you label someone a Nazi, the scum of the Earth, you are tacitly acknowledging that it’s okay to do whatever you want to them, because they are pure evil. It’s the start of the same kind of dehumanization campaign the Nazis did to the Jews in the 1930s. They have more in common with their boogeyman than they’d like to think.
Well, Padraig has already agreed the Bernie plan is unaffordable, and 100% of GDP is too much. That’s progress I suspect he now feels Bernie poking a finger in his chest, screeching “immoral cheatskate!”
The next step is to get Padraig to imagine talking to a lower-middle-class taxpayer, and asking HER to pay more for the next entitlement. This group has already shared reasons for a safety net. Let’s see how he tries to make the persuasive case, beyond just saying “it’s moral!”
Not a valid response.
As a democratic republic, yes, the people will decide. But I shared a detailed analysis based on hard data and sophisticated economics, of how big government SHOULD be.
Now I expect the courtesy of how big you personally feel government should be.
If you don’t answer, it will be clear you CANNOT answer. You – Padraig – are unable to say “government can safely take up to XX% of GDP for functioning and redistribution.”
Note that I give you the courtesy of just two digits, presuming you would not want MORE than 99%.
Prove me wrong or walk away in disgrace.
Quote:
“You – Padraig – are unable to say ‘government can safely take up to XX% of GDP for functioning and redistribution.’”
—————————————
As are you. The numbers that you post being based on unproven propositions (contradicted, as I noted, by actual facts) which you infer to be the equivalent of geometric theorems. They’re not – – – by a long shot.
As I have said before to your colleagues (Vide Triple Sphinctered Wombat & “Plan 9 From Outer Space”), it is not incumbent on me to prove you wrong, it is up to YOU to prove yourself RIGHT!
Make your case or go away.
You can argue with the detailed facts, links to historical time series, NBER critical reseach.
You can disagree, and say that you believe government in the US CAN sustain more than 28% of government arrogation. We can discuss the cultural differences that let the Scandinavians go above that, UNTIL Sweden and the UK started to privatize… So have at it and assail my proof.
What you CANNOT do is FAIL to state YOUR belief, how much government can take.
Well you can continue to evade the question, but then we know the answer. “How much coke with a crack-head do? ALL of it.”
OK. I didn’t realize you attached so much importance to it.
The answer (to how much the government can take [before it has a deleterious effect on the commonweal]) is:
“I don’t know”.
Nor do you.
Nothing is certain (except for one thing, later).
But in rational discourse, we know quite well there is a limit beyond which government arrogation is damaging.
Yes, we CAN say we know. We have the affirmative demonstrations I offered, with credible documentation. We also have the negative demonstrations – including the fact that everywhere and every time it is tried, socialism has failed. Everywhere. Every time.
So we know there is a limit, even without the power of information theory and feedback mechanisms.
Now the exception – we know, to a certainty, that you will not, because you cannot, admit any limit
And that is regrettable because I would have far preferred to engage with you, than have you delope.
Quote:
“Yes, we CAN say we know. We have the affirmative demonstrations I offered, with credible documentation. We also have the negative demonstrations – including the fact that everywhere and every time it is tried, socialism has failed. Everywhere. Every time.”
———————————————–
“Credible” and “probative” are not synonyms.
I have GOT to stay au courant with the news. I didn’t realize that Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway had all gone out of business.
Contrary to your claim, while I DID give you the opportunity to fire, your powder proved to be damp, giving me no opportunity to delope.
First, I would always let you take your best shot before responding. But you in fact fail to give your number.
Second, whatever standards of proof you propose, I have put facts and reason in play, You have not and instead merely decline to commit, because ANY limit is intolerable to you.
Next, as the lawyers say “Asked and answered” on those who have escaped socialism.
But if you’ve fallen behind, glad to provide updates on (i) socialist fails, and (ii) retreats from socialism.
Just a few suggestive examples.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/29/short-history-of-privatisation
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jun/16/20070616-080932-5740r/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/12/government-float-royal-mail-stock-exchange-privatisation
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/worldbusiness/05iht-private.4807230.html?mcubz=0
And so on,
I far prefer to engage, but only if you participate. I have serious credentials and will always provide ALL the data so we can discuss (degree in physics, actuary and CFA).
@Robert Arvanitis
I have read all your references and they all relate that some socialist (or “socialistic”) governments are drawing down some of the socialist initiatives that are now in place, selling government ownership in various firms. In no case do any of the articles claim that the social welfare network in place in those countries is being dismantled.
I fail to see your point. The people of those countries decided that socialist measures had gone too far and voted in governments that curtailed them, just as one would expect in Liberal democracies. So would I expect us to do here were the people to decide that prior government actions had been unreasonable. However, the social welfare initiatives that are under (somewhat) serious consideration here, like universal health insurance, are already in place in those countries and have NOT been rescinded.
It is clear that some socialist adventures do not stop, hence Venezuela.
Others, with a better educated populace or more coherent culture, see and react to the fatal limit and curb the excesses. No need for the straw man of anarchy.
“I have read all your references and they all relate that some socialist (or “socialistic”) governments are drawing down some of the socialist initiatives that are now in place, selling government ownership in various firms. In no case do any of the articles claim that the social welfare network in place in those countries is being dismantled.”
Not very well informed, are ya, honey?
@ Triple Sphinctered Wombat
[“sigh”]
Your posted video reference demonstrates again the necessity of your running your posts by someone who can rationally determine their RELEVANCE before you impose them to the general public
Johan Norberg is a libertarian author who criticizes the Swedish politicoeconomic system in the video. He does not suggest that the Swedish government is changing its ideological foundation or its social welfare system. Nor does Norberg suggest that the economy is failing or that the citizenry doesn’t like the political system or the social welfare system (or that it is unhappy.)
Dear Padraig,
Your cognitive dissonance is robust, son.
Norberg DOES INDEED demonstrate that the swedes – socially and politically – have been rejecting the socialist model and all its usual ills since the 1990’s and have steadily been changing it.
Proof has already been provided that Swedes are quite unhappy, which is why they are leaving in record numbers.
Thus, once again, all your proclamations are revealed to be without basis in reality or facts.
You keep hanging yourself out to dry, son. It’s hilarious watching it.
LOL!
Oh, Padraig, you delicious baby cakes,
Arvantis HAS proven his point, quantitatively. You are still unable to counter his logic with rational, evidence-based arguments of your own. In fact, YOU NEVER DO.
Either you are trolling or you are simply not intellectually/educationally equipped to hold your own in these discussions.
Either way, it doesn’t matter. We all know why it is you can’t participate in the give and take of a genuine discussion. The fun of your participation is that your statements keep getting turned back on themselves, wounding yourself instead of your intended target.
It’s like watching a Roadrunner-Wiley Coyote cartoon. Please continue! This is GREAT!
HAHAHAHAAAAAA!
@ Triple Sphinctered Wombat
[“sigh”]
Your claim that Sweden has abandoned socialism is false; your claim that Swedes are unhappy is false; and your claim that Swedes are leaving Sweden because they are unhappy with its politics is false.
The references that you posted simply do not support your claims. I encourage everyone to read them and come to his own conclusion.
Padraig – It not about dropping ALL welfare and becoming Somalia. That’s a straw man argument.
The point is that a few countries stop embedding entitlements BEFORE they become Venezuela. Others are not so fortunate like, well, Venezuela.
It’s not just a metaphor. Socialism is drug to the body politic; toxic yet addictive.
**************************************************
Now how about answering part two of my last note to you. What do we say to someone who hesitates about the welfare state. What are the reasons we can use to persuade?
It’s not enough to say “It’s moral!” and it certainly doesn’t work to say “Selfish!” Morality is part of it, but the non-religious folks, what valid social reasons can you give?
Tell me your best pitch and I’ll return the favor!
@ Robert Arvanitis
The fact that Sweden is discontinuing some of the features of socialism disproves your claim that socialism is “toxic and addictive”..
Quote:
“It’s not enough to say “It’s moral!” and it certainly doesn’t work to say “Selfish!” Morality is part of it, but the non-religious folks, what valid social reasons can you give?”
———————————-
Sure it is – – – and morality isn’t necessarily linked to religious belief. However, that’s not what I said. What I said was that “empathy and compassion and national pride” were all reasons fore enabling social welfare. Emotional reasons are no less compelling than political or economic ones. More so, in my estimation. Wanting to create a society (for emotional reasons) in which our fellow citizens don’t lead lives of degradation is the “valid social reason” that you seek.
Exquisite Padraig,
I doubt you realize it, but at this juncture, you are a character in the vid below. To be specific:
Elmer carries the Cannon of “Probative” Truth, and you are Daffy Duck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17ocaZb-bGg
But please, padraig – continue. 😉
Another answer to the “what do you want” question comes from the classic film Key Largo.
Bogart’s character gives an answer to what gangster Johnny Rocco (Edward G. Robinson) wants,
“He wants more.”
Sweden is socialism in retreat because the alternative is unsustainable. Sweden stopped, Venezuela didn’t. That’s all the proof we need.
*****************************************************
On justifying the welfare state, sorry to hear that all you have is “empathy” and “national pride,” There’s lots more and the left can’t continue the game without addressing those better motivations..
*****************************************************
Our government is out-sized and overly intrusive , An increasing share of working population is too close to the entitlement level that Bernie and Lizzie are pushing. They resent being badgered to pay for it. Hence the rising push back against bigger government.
I had hoped we could engage productively but it seems I misjudged. At least you did agree government couldn’t exceed 100% of GDP, so there may be hope for the future.
Robert Arvanitis
Quote:
“I had hoped we could engage productively but it seems I misjudged.”
——————————–
I share your disappointment.
No Pat. You do not share my disappointment. Because if you did, you would have offered facts and reason, brought something past grade school retorts. I am disappointed with you.
(Now your first thought is “no, i’,m disappointed at YOU!. There’s that grade school coming out again.)
I have made a sincere, not-polemic effort to engage with with you, and only got half a loaf, you admit 100% of GDP is too much.
Speaking of what we know, we know you’ve never had to make a hard economic decision, weigh trade-offs, costs, and gains. That’s something life has yet to teach you. I hope you pay attention when it does.
@ Robert Arvanitis
As I have noted with regard to some of your colleagues on this blog, one can only wonder if your criticisms of another are no more than an inability to perceive a character other than your own.
You ask for “hard data” but offer “numbers” yourself that are propositions and theory. I have told you that hard data is simply not on offer in this situation. Rational people will take your opinion into consideration (considering, as well, the fact that it has been disproven in reality) and act up it appropriately if economic initiatives seem to be bearing you out.
Quote:
“Speaking of what we know, we know you’ve never had to make a hard economic decision, weigh trade-offs, costs, and gains. That’s something life has yet to teach you. I hope you pay attention when it does.”
———————————————–
Surely you don’t believe such a ridiculous proposition – – – or perhaps you do.
Hard data is always on offer, it is simply misunderstood by the innumerate. I deal in it and you cannot respond.
*********************************
And yes we know you have never been tested, or had to make hard, mature decisions.
You’ve left far more than enough evidence about yourself splashed across this post, for amazingly accurate predictive analytics on that. Correlation is not causation, but that’s the way to bet.
E,g, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/#455016e36668
Don’t get confused here – no one says you’re pregnant. That’s merely the power of statistical inference based on the evidence.
*********************************
And with that, there’s nothing more I can do at the moment, no further insights to give you. At least you’ve admitted some limit on government, which leaves hope we may escape the fate of Venezuela.
@ Robert Arvanitis
Quote:
“Don’t get confused here – no one says you’re pregnant.”
——————————-
Not to worry, Robert. I don’t mind a bit if you think that I am. It is as accurate as the other fantasies that have been fabricated about me by a half-dozen of your colleagues on this blog. At least you had the honesty to describe your conclusion as based on inference. Invalid inference, to be sure, but as least you didn’t confuse your opinion with fact as do your fellows.
Not sure if you’ve missed the point that badly, or if the misdirection is intentional.
******************************
You exhibit a number of “tells” as poker players would say.
BY WHICH we know you have never faced tough business decisions, balancing risk and reward.
That means your opinions on economic matters are not based on hard experience.
Similarly you also fail to cite ANY academic or even media sources for your beliefs.
I’ve given you historical data and NBER studies which you are unable to refute.
Finally, you have no case to make to an unsympathetic voter other than “Because!”
****************************
I really did try but we are done
Unless of course you still have that grade school need to grasp for the last word. By all means indulge.
@ Robert Arvanitis
Quote:
“I really did try but we are done
Unless of course you still have that grade school need to grasp for the last word. By all means indulge.
————————————–
It’s as if I said it myself. You set the bar.
—————————————
“You exhibit a number of “tells” as poker players would say.
BY WHICH we know you have never faced tough business decisions,”
———————————–
Sure you do, Robert. I’ll name my child after you when I am delivered.
Repeating assertions that have been rebutted previously doesn’t make them any more credible – – – unless one is a Right-Winger.
Padraig,
Do you get paid to be an asshole, or is it more of a hobby?