Tuesday, September 15, 2009

About Those Right Wing Fascists

In order delegitimize the tea party movement, the MSM -- abetted by kooks such as Charles Johnson -- is highlighting the people who brought signs linking Obama to fascism. Again, is this my style? No. But is it my substance? Let's find out.

Of course, if one is remotely balanced -- let alone charitable -- one will acknowledge that both sides have their crazies, and leave it at that. For every moonbat there's an equal and opposite wingnut, and all that. In fact, for every gay-hating Fred Phelps there must be a dozen God-hating Charles Johnsons. But the science of natural selection is not discredited just because people such as Queeg turn it into a religion, nor should marriage be redefined just because Phelps thinks it shouldn't be.

Let's face it: there are only two main parties, but millions of emotionally disturbed people. What are they supposed to do, form their own party? Some of them do, but you have to be both crazy and stupid to think that the Green Party or Reform Party will ever go anywhere.

There are not too many things that really bother me about politics, politics being what it is. But one thing that does is when people condemn one side for doing exactly what the other side does. This is why you will never see me get excited by a commonplace political scandal. Of course politicians are corrupt. That's why I am a conservative. I want fewer of them, with less power over me.

One way to avoid dealing with the substance of an argument is to simply caricature your opposition by focusing on its extreme elements. This is intellectually dishonest. As far as I am concerned, it is not necessary to highlight the true crazies of the left -- Moveon.org, Code Pink, environmental terrorists, PETA, etc. -- because the mainstream is already so nuts. It's a full time job just dealing with the New York Times, CNN, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Van Jones, ACORN, etc.

I've read any number of mainstream analyses of the tea party movement, and not one of them dispassionately discusses the substance of the arguments, i.e., out of control government spending, socialized medicine, legislation to forbid the climate from changing, etc.

Now, back to those "crazies" who think that Obama is a fascist. First of all, you have to understand that genocide is not intrinsic to fascism. In a way, Hitler spoiled a perfectly useful word by forever associating it with the Holocaust. So now we have no name for a certain enduring political phenomenon, just because the name for it has been tainted.

To be honest, this post is just an excuse for me to review and assimilate Hayek's Road to Serfdom, which I finished yesterday. Although originally published in 1944, it is as timely as ever, given the events of the day.

I had already read some of Hayek's other books, not to mention a couple of recent biographies, but this is considered his most accessible work. There was nothing in it that was new for me, but it certainly reinforces the fact that there isn't anything the least bit controversial about linking Obama and fascism. Indeed, Obama is simply acting from a script that was written (and discredited) long ago. It's timeless, really.

Again, at the time it was published, Hayek was trying to make the then-controversial point that communism and fascism were not opposites, but two consequences of the same underlying assumptions. These assumptions are profoundly illiberal, which is why, if you want to reduce it to a linear map, both socialism and fascism are on the left, while classical liberalism is on the right. But this is not really a useful distinction. I much prefer the four-quadrant graph I discussed yesterday, which distinguishes collectivism from individualism and the worldly from the spiritual.

A classical liberal of the American type believes first and foremost in liberty. But not the unconstrained horizontal liberty of the radical secularist. Rather, it can only be understood in a spiritual context, which is why the Founders wanted a secular state but a religious society infused with Judeo-Christian principles and values. None of them imagined that democracy would work in the absence of a virtuous population (although I am quite sure that our trolls can find the stray comment by a Jefferson or Paine justiying their own hatred of God).

It is important to point out that while critics of the tea party movement will cherry-pick some of the signs to focus on, they object just as much to the intellectual substance. The signs just give them a convenient way to avoid debate.

Thus, when The Road to Serfdom was published in the 1940s, it was greeted by the liberal ignorantsia exactly as if Hayek were holding up a sign of Roosevelt with a Hitler moustache. He was dismissed not just as wrong, but sinister (again, without ever engaging the substance of his ideas). This is because virtually all intellectuals at the time were unquestioned socialists. Of course, they accused Hayek of being "reactionary," which was transparent projection, just as today.

As I've said before many times, I don't necessarily blame someone for being a socialist in the 1930s or 1940s, before economics was the science it is today. Socialism has an intrinsic appeal, especially to intellectuals who believe that irreducibly complex problems are susceptible to easy solutions if we just apply enough brain power. This is one of the reasons the left is so enamored of Obama. For whatever reason, they all think he's "brilliant," so that he can "solve our problems." The same things were said of Clinton. But as Milton Friedman famously remarked, no one has all the knowledge necessary to produce even a single pencil, let alone "control healthcare."

Nevertheless, one of the reasons Hayek doesn't appeal to the left wing ignorantsia is that he renders them not just superfluous, but demonstrates how dangerous they are -- not necessarily because of any bad intentions on their part. To the contrary. It is nearly always with the best of intentions. It is just that they are attempting to control reality before having understood it. The grandiose visions of the left are just fairy tales by another name.

But what is worse, they cannot understand the realities they presume to control, not in fact, nor in principle. Can't be done. A free market economy, for example, consists of millions of people making billions of spontaneous decision based upon a practically infinite amount of knowledge, information, and wisdom dispersed throughout the system. Furthermore, it is non-linear, so that if you tinker with one variable, it will have unforeseen -- and unforeseeable -- consequences that will reverberate throughout the system.

Let's take the simple example of Roe v. Wade. Any intellectually honest person knows that this decision was unconstitutional. Be that as it may, one of the ideas was to prevent all of those deaths resulting from back alley abortions -- all six of them, or however many it was (don't believe anyone who gives you a statistic, because they're making it up).

But what were the actual consequences of Roe v. Wade? Being that there have been -- what 50 million? -- abortions since 1973, and thousands a day, I am quite sure that more women have died as a result of legal abortions than the illegal ones. This is because Roe v. Wade incentivized abortion, and with it, promiscuity and general sexual irresponsibility.

In a way, it's similar to the HIV virus, which incentivised homosexuals to refrain from certain activities, such as having thousands of anonymous partners in a bathhouse. But if a cure is ever found, then you can be quite sure that the same culture will flourish. Incentives matter. Intentions don't.

But the left is always blind to the consequences of their policies. And because they are rooted in emotion, not thought, they will simply vilify you if you disagree with them, as they did with Hayek.

The other day, Tom Friedman removed the mask and argued that China was a good country for the United States to emulate, because only with an authoritarian state would it be possible to impose Friedman World on the rest of us. In this regard, Hayek wrote that, once one concludes that central planning is necessary, this leads to "the demand that the government, or some single individual, should be given power to act on their own.... It becomes more and more the accepted belief that... the responsible director of affairs must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure" (emphasis mine).

Not only has every liberal commentator (including the President) taken Sarah Palin's "death panels" comment out of context, but they refuse even to acknowledge that the responsible director of medical affairs must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure in deciding how medical resources will be allocated. How is this belief controversial?

In his introduction to the book, Caldwell notes that Hayek's ideas are not just a kind of "lightning rod," but a Rorschach test that reveals "as much about the reader's prior commitments as it does about Hayek's ideas." Both the ideas and the reaction to them are timeless, man being what he is. After all, slavery and serfdom are the rule in human history, not the exception. Therefore, it is not as if these were simply accidental developments in human history. To the contrary, the culture of liberty is clearly the exception.

But the leftist believes to his core that liberty is possible in a culture of servitude. Apparently, he never pauses to think that for a third or half the year he is in bondage to the state. In my case, there is federal tax, state tax, property tax, payroll tax, sales tax, gas tax, beer tax, and more, not to mention various licenses and fees. And the government is still bankrupt!

Does the leftist really not put two and two together and understand that for the government, it always equals five? Does he really believe that there is no justification for anger at the size and scope of government? Does he really believe that it is somehow "liberal" to want to work even more for an even larger state? Does he really not acknowledge his bottomless greed and sense of entitlement for the fruits of our labors?

To be continued....

56 Comments:

Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Great post, Bob.

You say incentivized. I prefer endorsed. Be that as it may, if you add the two together both have encouraged.

9/15/2009 10:24:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Nevertheless, one of the reasons Hayek doesn't appeal to the left wing ignorantsia is that he renders them not just superfluous, but demonstrates how dangerous they are -- not necessarily because of any bad intentions on their part. To the contrary. It is nearly always with the best of intentions. It is just that they are attempting to control reality before having understood it. The grandiose visions of the left are just fairy tales by another name."

Exactly so, and the reason why it is so dangerous, because it lazily allows it's adherents to feel sooo good, about not knowing about the damage they are causing.

9/15/2009 10:28:00 AM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

"As far as I am concerned, it is not necessary to highlight the true crazies of the left -- Moveon.org, Code Pink, environmental terrorists, PETA, etc. -- because the mainstream is already so nuts. It's a full time job just dealing with the New York Times, CNN, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Van Jones, ACORN, etc. "

Unfortunately, the true crazies hold the reigns of power in the Dem party. A Deadhead apiece ruling the House and the Senate.

9/15/2009 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger shoprat said...

It seems that the left not only fail to see the real world but cannot even conceive of it. No wonder so many of them are Academics, Journalists and Entertainers. It makes no sense but those jobs seem to isolate people from the real world.

9/15/2009 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Hayek wrote that, once one concludes that central planning is necessary, this leads to "the demand that the government, or some single individual, should be given power to act on their own..."

And walking it back a few philosophical steps, once you determine that reality can be thought of as being what you say it is (Descartes, Kant, etc), then it is only a matter of time for it to percolate up through metaphysics and epistemology, into ethics and politics, for it to be considered necessary, and proper, to tell people how they should be, and to force the recalcitrant to be reformed, deformed or discarded for not fitting into the new norm, as determined by 'enlightened' central planning and the central planner.

9/15/2009 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Does the leftist really not put two and two together and understand that for the government, it always equals five? Does he really believe that there is no justification for anger at the size and scope of government? Does he really believe that..."

Nyah... what they realize is that you're obviously racist. And hate the poor.

Obviously.

9/15/2009 11:10:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, it's a very consistent thread that runs through leftist thought, from the idea that we can predict and control the weather to the belief that Darwinism fully explains life.

9/15/2009 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Let's take the simple example of Roe v. Wade. Any intellectually honest person knows that this decision was unconstitutional. Be that as it may, one of the ideas was to prevent all of those deaths resulting from back alley abortions..."

Speaking of unintended consequences arising from the best of intentions, IMHO (and probably to our trolls delight) the SCOTUS decision which most enabled the Roe v Wade to not be laughed out of court, was 'Brown v Board of Education'. Others ignored, misread or violated the Constitution, but Brown was the first major decision to use irrelevant material (social worker 'findings' and studies) in order to contrive an emotionally pre-determined (prejudiced) decision, outside of the facts, Reason and the Constitution.

A contrivance made necessary by the previous discarding of Property Rights, making mandatory public schools, etc... there was no way for people to say "Look you twits! This is America, you can't take our money, and not only give unequal returns for it, but give us no say in it!".

No property rights - no Individual Rights; No objective law, only the emotional whims of the powerful (try quoting Brown v Board of Ed to those kids recently kicked out of the better DC schools because Obama felt it was more important that the leftist school board be in control, rather than they continue a good education).

From a nation of laws not men... to a nation where a man in power can ignore the laws, and as he recently put it in a speech to a union "The time for debate is over, now is the time for Action!"

Fascism?... not yet, not technically... but we're taking all the left turns and off ramps.

9/15/2009 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anti-Gagdad said...

Of course conservatives are selfish nutjobs. That's why I am a liberal. I want fewer of them, with less power over me and over a nation that sorely needs to purge them from our midst.

9/15/2009 11:54:00 AM  
Anonymous maineman said...

I know this gets said over and over, but it is not only astounding, but increasingly so, how utterly delusional so many of us are. The most reasonable of comments can send the wrong person into a spasm of near incontinence.

I don't know if I'm now more grounded -- I flatter myself that at least that is somewhat true -- or others are taking leave of their senses at an alarming pace. The chasm between reality and those on the left seems to be widening every day, such that the only reasonable paradigm seems to be that God is on the march and the Devil is working overtime. Any other explanation of the apparent meteoric spread of psychopathology just doesn't seem to cut it anymore.

Or is it just that I'm seeing what I used to miss?

9/15/2009 11:58:00 AM  
Anonymous maineman said...

Ah, but A-G, you evidently have failed to notice that the Prius and other clown cars and scooters are effectively an extermination program for liberals.

9/15/2009 12:00:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

AG, ironically you've somewhat hit on the point. True conservatives don't want power over you, any more than you want them to have it; it's hard enough figuring out how to control ourselves, much less anybody else. Yes, we are selfish, because we don't give a damn about running your life. Nor supporting you in any means to which you may be accustomed. Not. Our. Job.

Mostly, we want to mind our own business and have a small government that allows us to do that while maintaining our liberty.

But in advocating purges, yes, your moniker is correct, given that the true conservative way does not cave into totalitarian methods to achieve its ends.

9/15/2009 12:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"True conservatives don't want power over you"

Too bad none of the "true conservatives" ever decide to become politicians, then.

9/15/2009 12:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Mommy said...

Ummmm,
Anti-Gagdad = 14 years old?

9/15/2009 12:42:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Yes, it is. Why do you think so many of us call Republicans "the stupid party?"

However, such is life.

Related, A Second Bill of Rights.

Take it away, Teddy:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return, which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.


It all sounds so nice to the thoughtless and well-intentioned, doesn't it? They never look beyond the intentions to what it all actually entails, no matter how much life, livelihood and liberty is lost in the pursuit of equality of outcome.

It should be called the Bill of Envy, instead.

9/15/2009 12:48:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Speaking of power issues, this is disturbing. Would they have brought those out for anti-war rallies?

9/15/2009 01:17:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Armstrong said...

"Of course politicians are corrupt. That's why I am a conservative. I want fewer of them, with less power over me."

I had been in a debate with my friend Alex Smith [no, not the 49er quarterback] about who's more corrupt the Demmies or the Repos.

After investigating the scandals of the last many years, I've convinced the Repos are more corrupt by a big ratio.

Whether there are fewer or more politicians, they will be The Government, so, ipso facto, they have complete power over us.

Thus a Dem President and big majorities in the House and Senate are recommended. Whoa! That's what we have now! Goody!

9/15/2009 01:51:00 PM  
Blogger Anna said...

Every time I read that [The Second "Bill of Rights"] my stomach churns. It takes the hinge on which those things actually turn - equality of opportunity, not effects - and washes it all out, eliminating the friction to get traction to actually do something.

Oddly it always sounds so familiar, and when I look back to growing up can see echoes of the same ethos - among people who did not even read it! [A few certain people, and a greater number on an outer fringe of periodic interaction/encounter...]

Also, if it could be so "easy" then it would have been done by now.

The "people in charge" like to "give" because it cements their "in charge" status by creating dependents. The people (on the receiving end) who will sidestep Law are complicit in hindering the good consequences for those doing the hard work. Gross. It plays out even with "group work" in classrooms.

Thank goodness reaping and sowing are connected in Reality. There is no shortchanging Reality.


...One thing that keeps coming to mind is when I would play a board game with my sister, and she would either cheat, make up new rules, or throw the board out of frustration, among spurious other game-eluding/destroying tactics. It seems like that's what the left does sometimes.

9/15/2009 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger Russell said...

Obama reminds me more of Peronism lately than anything else.

Yes, it's a version of fascism, but minus Hitler. Maybe the left wouldn't freak out as much with that connection.

9/15/2009 02:39:00 PM  
Blogger Anna said...

I only read the first part of Obama's back to school speech/talk, and didn't hear it, but it was remarkable how it resembled descriptions of fascism in the book "Liberal Fascism". It freaked me out a little. Mainly, or, one thing, was the admonishment to develop your talent for the good of the country. Jonah Goldberg's detailed history lesson on the Progressives and Fascism is much needed right now - if only that was on the evening news. That book was very timely (it goes without saying). The paperback version has a post-2008 election update.

9/15/2009 03:13:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Maineman - Almost makes you wonder if there might not be some "powerful delusion" (v11) at work.

I know, pretty dark.

9/15/2009 03:20:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Further on "powerful delusion" - How else can anyone actually believe that our state-sanctioned child sacrifice, resulting in the murder of millions of our unborn children for the sake of convenience, is any different from the ancient pagan worship of and sacrifice to Moloch?

You had to bring up Roe v. Wade, didn’t you Bob.

I should stop now. It just gets darker from here.

9/15/2009 03:57:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

From Julie's link,

"September 11, 2009 (San Diego) – “Long-range acoustic devices [LRADs] for crowd control can be extremely dangerous. These are used in Iraq to control insurgents. They can cause serious and lasting harm to humans…We want to know WHY our Sheriff Dept has this weapon,” Sal Magallanez of San Diego-based Liberty One Radio said..."

Huh. Anyone recall Dr. Robert Stadler and his top secret "Project X" sonic weapon to control the dissatisfied masses towards the end of Atlas Shrugged?

Ok, I think I've had enough of life imitating art now.

9/15/2009 04:47:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Oh! This is a good one...

One million jobs saved at the cost of..

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/09/14/saving_one_million_jobs_at_787000_per_job_97404.html

9/15/2009 05:44:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Russell said "... it's a version of fascism, but minus Hitler. Maybe the left wouldn't freak out as much with that connection."

Nah, I don't think so. They'd like to avoid the hitler association of course, but their real phobia is towards factual identification itself.

It burns.

9/15/2009 06:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am quite sure that more women have died as a result of legal abortions than the illegal ones."

I doubt it. In fact, I dare you to actually look the numbers up.

Seriously, when the fuck does just saying something make it true? Well, it isn't, and you won't find the numbers supporting your case, they don't exist.

Next time be a little more, "intellectually honest," Bob.

9/15/2009 07:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nah, I don't think so. They'd like to avoid the hitler association of course, but their real phobia is towards factual identification itself."

You know the best people to tell you who reminds them of Hitler would be the Germans. Now as I recall, it was always Bush who was associated with Hitler by the Germans.

Now what is so funny about Bob trying to act as if he represents a rational case against Obama is he once practically accused Obama of being the Anti-Christ, and when he was called on it, he pulled a Glenn Beck and said he only meant to say there were a lot of similarities. Well you can find several similarities, when you point out they make you think of the Anti-christ, you're planting the idea.

Well Bob, not all conservatives are crazy, but you certainly aren't above those crazies, so don't act as if you somehow have the rationality to make a strong case.

9/15/2009 07:12:00 PM  
Blogger Russell said...

Van: "They'd like to avoid the hitler association of course, but their real phobia is towards factual identification itself.

It burns."

Yeah, I think you are correct. Witness the spluttering of the anon between posts.

9/15/2009 07:19:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

For the anonymous troll: http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL06/a_primer_on.htm

9/15/2009 07:20:00 PM  
Anonymous laketrout said...

> You know the best people to
> tell you who reminds them
> of Hitler would be the Germans

And I think that out of this group the best German person would probably be his Mom.

-Jack Handy

9/15/2009 07:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Susannah, thank's for proving my point.

I'm sure next time you'll read your article, or take a math class which will inform you that 24 is indeed fewer deaths than 39.

9/15/2009 07:25:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

http://www.nrlc.org/UN/MMEnglsh.pdf

9/15/2009 07:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

basically what that article showed was nothing. It explained deaths from different years, but not once actually said that there were fewer deaths any given year from illegal abortions. The closest we get to that is the statement about deaths in 1966 where they estimated still more illegal deaths, and the article compared illegal deaths in 1972 to that 1966 number. Hardly an article with any facts.

9/15/2009 07:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh lol, are you serious Susannah? You're talking about worldwide legal abortions?

I'm sorry, but if you're going to use the argument, you need to keep third world statistics out of it. Seriously, let's talk about modern medicine.

9/15/2009 07:35:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

aninnymouse said "Seriously, when the [insert a shining proof of intelligence word here] does just saying something make it true?"

Lol! Coming from the side of the aisle which supports FDR's 'Bill of Envious Desires' listed above, and calls them Rights, based upon nothing more than words, words which if ever actually fully applied, would mean the virtual enslavement of the entire nation... that, and your indignation, are truly hilarious!

9/15/2009 07:36:00 PM  
Anonymous maineman said...

Question: Why can't leftists talk or write without swearing?

9/15/2009 07:53:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I've actually posted on that subject before. I have no idea what it was called. Maybe I can think if it....

9/15/2009 07:58:00 PM  
Blogger MAHTOMEDI said...

Julie,
You can label it the "Bill of Envy" or whatever else but it was the continual dismissal of concerns from families with two working spouses, still not being able to make ends meet despite being frugal, that brought Obama to power. U.S. citizens are mostly in the Conservative mindset regarding the role of government but when a boot is on their throats, especially while they are trying to raise their children, don't be put-out that they would seek an FDR figure. Only money pays the bills. The Republicans pushed the pro-business agenda too far for too long and now we see the swing of the pendulum. If you don't think that the blue-collar worker needs his/her financial disadvantage addressed, then conservatives should plan on being out of power for a long, long time.

9/15/2009 07:59:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

This one touches on the subject of "dirty words."

9/15/2009 08:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Someone needs to crack an economics book, or he will be a slave on the leftist plantation forever.

9/15/2009 08:08:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Oh, good grief.

Must I state the obvious?

Legalized abortion has killed millions of women, by virtue of the simple fact that roughly half of those abortions (in this country, anyway) were female. In certain other countries, of course, that ratio is much higher as female children (and women in general) are considered undesirable.

Bluster all you want, those little details are incontestable.

maht,
if blue-collar workers want to address their "financial disadvantages," it is much more beneficial for them to do so by working hard and finding a better paying job than by having the government penalize their employers for having a business successful enough to hire them in the first place.

9/15/2009 08:11:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

There might be one other person on the cosmos who is interested in the psychoanalytic origin and significance of Dirty Words. I read the book over 15 years ago, so I don't remember it was any good.....

9/15/2009 08:12:00 PM  
Blogger Russell said...

And Julie, clearly the best way to help the blue collar man is to destroy the economy, raise taxes, bury generations with debt, show our bellies to our enemies, and strip away any choices about health care.

Duh!

"I'm sure next time you'll read your article, or take a math class which will inform you that 24 is indeed fewer deaths than 39."

How ghoulish. So ready to tear down B'ob that these tragic deaths become just a numbers game.

Ah well, I see why the trolls tend to remain anonymous.

wv: herse. Yes, indeed.

9/15/2009 08:13:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

This may surprise MAHTOMEDI, but one of the secrets of slack and therefore of life -- disclosed by none other than Toots Mondello -- is to find yourself a rich guy and make yourself indispensable to him. Thus, anything that reduces the number of rich guys is a non-starter. Worked for me....

9/15/2009 08:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Alan said...

Anonymous said:
""I am quite sure that more women have died as a result of legal abortions than the illegal ones."

I doubt it. In fact, I dare you to actually look the numbers up. "

It's simple, actually - take approximately half the abortions in the US since Roe v Wade - and that gives you in the 10s of millions of women who have died as a result of legal abortions. That is an irrefutable fact.

I think you owe Bob an apology for your scurrilous attack and the rest of us an apology for your language.

9/15/2009 08:23:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Heh - me, too. Of course, part of how I made myself indispensable was by making it a little easier for him to become a rich guy in the first place :)

9/15/2009 08:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Alan said...

oops- I didn't read Julie's comment - that will teach me for not refreshing my browser in a while before commenting!

As compensation, here is a link to a a graphic novel version of Road to Serfdom link

9/15/2009 08:26:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Rights Vs. "rights," in pictures.

9/15/2009 08:31:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Dang, the illustrative examples are flying tonight.
Next, Why would I hire somebody?

And on language, VDH has The Rise of the Uncouth.

Not that the trolls will learn anything...

9/15/2009 08:38:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I remember Dennis Prager saying that there was a time that, all things being equal, he would hire a black person over a white person, since he believes that affirmative action is a fine idea, so long as it is voluntary, not compelled by the state.

But because of "civil rights" activists, a businessman is assuming all kinds of additional risk by hiring a black person. For example, you can be taken to court merely for firing them, and the burden of proof will be on you to show that it wasn't for reasons of discrimination. Happens all the time. I've seen it hundreds of times in the workers comp system. Ultimately these misguided policies only help attorneys, but hurt the intended beneficiaries.

9/15/2009 08:53:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

And one more example, "therightscoop@alancolmes you must know alot about teabagging to throw it around like you do. Just when I try and respect you, YOU BLOW IT."

9/15/2009 09:03:00 PM  
Blogger WWWebb said...

Thank you, Bob.

TRTS is one of my favorite books, and I consider it to be one of the unsung most important books of the twentieth century.

9/15/2009 10:33:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Outstanding post, Bob!

"One way to avoid dealing with the substance of an argument is to simply caricature your opposition by focusing on its extreme elements. This is intellectually dishonest. As far as I am concerned, it is not necessary to highlight the true crazies of the left -- Moveon.org, Code Pink, environmental terrorists, PETA, etc. -- because the mainstream is already so nuts. It's a full time job just dealing with the New York Times, CNN, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Van Jones, ACORN, etc. "

I would only add, unless the crackpots such as Moveon.org are involved with the mainstream left, or are steering it, I concur.
Because that's currently where a lot of the money is coming from,
and the people behind Moveon. have been deeply involved with the hard left turn the democrats have made.

I'm sure you are talkin' about all the distractions these groups set up, but I just wanted to clarify that Moveon (the perps behind Moveon, actually) is a big playa now, although behind the scenes, mostly.

9/16/2009 12:22:00 AM  
Blogger Beer Nutz said...

"Nevertheless, one of the reasons Hayek doesn't appeal to the left wing ignorantsia is that he renders them not just superfluous, but demonstrates how dangerous they are -- not necessarily because of any bad intentions on their part. To the contrary. It is nearly always with the best of intentions. It is just that they are attempting to control reality before having understood it. The grandiose visions of the left are just fairy tales by another name."

Even worse, I think their hubris prevents them from seeing any negative consequences of their ideas - if reality doesn't bend to their vision, it can only be the result of (some adjective - racism, greed, etc.)

9/16/2009 06:53:00 AM  
Blogger Beer Nutz said...

"Nevertheless, one of the reasons Hayek doesn't appeal to the left wing ignorantsia is that he renders them not just superfluous, but demonstrates how dangerous they are -- not necessarily because of any bad intentions on their part. To the contrary. It is nearly always with the best of intentions. It is just that they are attempting to control reality before having understood it. The grandiose visions of the left are just fairy tales by another name."

Even worse, I think their hubris prevents them from seeing any negative consequences of their ideas - if reality doesn't bend to their vision, it can only be the result of (some adjective - racism, greed, etc.)

9/16/2009 06:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would have thought Germans, at least those I've read or known, were the worst sorts of people to decide who was "like Hitler." It works something like this:

Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Obama is Hitler (never Lenin);
the FBI/CIA is the Gestapo (never the KGB);
prison/Gitmo is Auschwitz (never the Gulag);

therefore

when we "good Germans" resist Reagan...Obama we're just like the White Rose, the Maquis and Staffenberg; and

since you Americans are just like Hitler then what you do is just like Hitler, then we "good Germans" weren't so bad in the 1930s and 1940s after all, because, you know, you are just like Hitler;

therefore

we should support Saddam and the Palestinians because they opposes you Hitler-like Americans.

I won't even go into what the Europeans think of Jews. Hasn't changed enough.

9/16/2009 07:45:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home