A Dedicated Politician

If we look to the roots of socialism, it makes sense why a lot of intelligent people believe in it. First, the idea of socialism began with the idea that society could be completely understood and, thus, controlled, because of the success of science. Socialism was supposed to be "scientific," and if you believed that society was like a machine, then you could fix and improve that machine and create progress in the same way that technology progressed. There is a certain kind of rationalist (in the Kantian sense) world view involved here -- socialists believe that the world itself is rational, and thus can be rationally designed. This brings us back to science, since it is based on rationalism. This rationalism was, however, idealist, and was thus not connected to the empirical world.

When you combine this with Rousseauian egalitarianism -- as picked up by Marx and, ultimately, by postmodernism -- then you have a very solid basis for supporting socialism. You have an ideal -- egalitarianism -- which in the myth is originary and good and which has been corrupted by society, and you have some evidence from the sciences to support it. So it makes perfect sense why very intelligent and very complex thinkers -- dare I say, some of the most complex thinkers -- are socialist. They are true believers who believe too that the only reason why socialism hasn't worked is because the right people (them) haven't tried it, that in the past it was always corrupted by people who were using it for cynical purposes and private gain.

During the same time, though, there was another track -- that of empiricism and a kind of integrated rationalism that better included emotions that we see in the Scotish Enlightenment philosophers. This is where classical liberal thought began, leading to free markets and constitutionalism. It's not surprising that the Modern Era, with its love of dualisms, came up with the classical liberal and socialist tracks. The postmodern era, with its more complex thinkers, have decided in favor of various forms of socialism and welfare statism -- but it is equally interesting to note that the next level of complexity, integrationism, is deeply classically liberal. They take into consideration the changing, complex nature of the world that others, including the postmoderns, do not. Further, they realize people are social mammals (Marxists think we are social insects; Objectivists think we are antisocial mammals, like tigers), though that sociality is limited and most strongly expressed when voluntary. More, when dealing with very large groups, only a free market system has the capability to organize behavior in productive ways. Emergence theory (including swarm theory) shows that individuals working for their own interests (while paying attention to what others are doing) create higher-level complex behaviors. But it happens bottom-up, never top-down.

Don't you find it hilarious that someone would publically state that they are concerned about telemarketing jobs?

And what do these people have in mind to "protect" jobs? The only jobs their policies can protect are low end, low value jobs like telemarketing.

On the other hand, their policies of increased taxation and regulation are job killing to the high end, high value jobs.

The Loco Focos are truly Luddites that would cater to the buggy whip manufacteres if they had union PAC money to spend.

"How to account for people who have all of the credentials of intelligence but still profess belief in the correctness and rightness of socialism"

I would like to see the MRI document how people think during these question. My guess the logic area of the brain in a conservative and the feelings area of a liberal light up.

I like Flash's question, but, no, Hillary or Bill isn't stupid. On the contrary, they are (or have) arguably pursuing their ambitions with a single-minded brilliance.

It is probably not stupidity at work when the very educated advocate for socialism. It very well could be a desire to be looked apon with favor amongst those who sympathize with socialism (there are many influential people with these sympathies and they have an ability to create buzz/talk/public opinion). It also could be an ambitious pursuit of power and the access to goodies/perks that come with wielding such power.

"They'd both have to be stupid to believe that. Do you think they're stupid?"

This is a question that has plagued me for the longest time. How to account for people who have all of the credentials of intelligence but still profess belief in the correctness and rightness of socialism, a religion that has as its foundation the act of theft as its first and foremost tenet? To believe in a religion, the practice of which, that has reduced society after society to moral degradation, fiscal ruin, and eventual utter decay requires something to be wrong in the brain. If not stupidity, then what?

This observation carries over to the last post of this issue of Cafe Hayek regarding the differences shown in a study of brain activity between socialists and conservatives.

Not to give this more attention than it deserves (nor overstate the obvious), but Hillary is a dedicated liar. All politicians are liars to some degree, but Hillary is especially good at it. She and her “husband” exhibit many personality traits of poker players, and some of prostitutes.

It’s one thing to be caught lying about the occasional subject, such as free trade. Lying is a well documented pattern of behavior with them.

This is pathological behavior. It should be treated first with a critical eye, as they can and have done real damage, and need to be kept from power, then with an eye towards rehabilitation.

The ease with which Hillary and Bill consistently get away with this deviant behavior speaks volumes of the gullibility and naïveté of their minions and supporters (e.g. TLH, and the New York Times and Washington Post).

Exactly my point.

Flash: You don't have to be stupid to be deluded.

Never underestimate the power of delusion.

I am totally convinced that Bill considers himself as dedicated a husband as Hillary considers herself a free-trader.

They'd both have to be stupid to believe that. Do you think they're stupid?

Among the differences between perception and reality, the greatest discrepancy is with self-perception. I am totally convinced that Bill considers himself as dedicated a husband as Hillary considers herself a free-trader.

HAW HAW HAW

Hillary Clinton's husband was unfaithful!

I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING

YOU SHOULD WRITE FOR JAY LENO

OMG SO FUNNY

Cute ending, but a little below the belt. Well at least for one person referenced.