Emotional and Ethical Dwarfs

by Don Boudreaux on March 14, 2008

in Politics

Speaking of all-too-many
successful politicians, David Brooks — in his New York Times column today — notes that "their sensitivity
synapses are still performing at preschool levels" and that they "have
an almost limitless capacity for self-pity."

In other words, politicians are children disguised as
adults – persons who ought to be playing with wooden blocks while
seated at their little desks in Romper Room rather than playing with
our liberties and resources while seated at their mahogany desks within
marble-domed monuments to their stupid power.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

Add a Comment    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 50 comments }

lowcountryjoe March 14, 2008 at 6:00 pm

I need to be protected by our politicians. It's for my own good and yours' too. Besides, tinker toys, lincoln logs, legos, and erector sets can only limit those politicians from providing for our protects; they need the mahogany and marble because it adds style to the protection package.

Ryan Fuller March 14, 2008 at 7:16 pm

That's just great the author compares politicians' serial sociopathy to an Asperger's Convention.

Lets just ignore that many people with Asperger's have decent social skills (having devoted conscious work to develop them) while politicians in general are a bunch of megalomaniacal assholes of their own choice.

The main thrust of the article is good, but that analogy was in seriously bad taste.

David White March 14, 2008 at 7:44 pm

So why do politicians exist? Because of the ongoing atrocity that is the state:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html

Brian-NJ March 14, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Well, if that's who gets elected thats who we deal with. If one vote doesn't matter and its potential caster withdraws it from the election, that's one more vote toward electing the "child" as opposed to the adult who could be elected and would certainly tell the rest of the children what they don't want to hear, which is why they don't elected in the first place.

If we want adults in politics, then we need adults voting them in.

noahpoah March 14, 2008 at 9:01 pm

If we want adults in politics, then we need adults voting them in.

We also need adults as candidates. And, whether the candidates are adults or children, their power once elected should be much more limited than it is now.

Python March 14, 2008 at 9:19 pm

We elect those that are the best at getting elected – not necessarily those who are the best for the job. Because it is near impossible to get the right man/woman/cat in important offices, one logical conclusion is to not let the elected official make many important decisions when they get there.

jpm March 14, 2008 at 10:13 pm

I got to say that Don has come down quite a bit in credibility lately:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/03/12/non-judgmental_nonsense

He will have a tough time overcoming his outrageous Spitzer post this week.

Mesa Econoguy March 15, 2008 at 1:44 am

Truly outrageous!

;)

Didn't even have to post this….

[did I mention Dr. Sowell is a genius...?]

Mesa Econoguy March 15, 2008 at 2:19 am

“Many in the media refer to Eliot Spitzer as some moral hero who fell from grace. Spitzer was never a moral hero. He was an unscrupulous prosecutor who threw his power around to ruin people, even when he didn’t have any case with which to convict them of anything.

Because he was using his overbearing power against businesses, the anti-business Left idolized him, just as they idolized Ralph Nader before him as some sort of secular saint because Nader attacked General Motors.”

Most journalists are, shall we say, “lefty’s,” and as such are intellectual dwarfs.

Sylvain March 15, 2008 at 10:07 am

Instead of bashing individuals who were born as everybody as human beings just think of institutions, rules and powers. People act according to rules of behavior (please read Hayek again) and these rules were not born naturally but were artificially forged by lawmakers (a specie that should not exist).

muirgeo March 15, 2008 at 11:29 am

It's all about ego. And none of us are above ego. It is my self-righteousness that makes me feel superior to the banker. The banker may feel superior from all the things he owns. The economist may feel superior because of his ideology. In the end it's all ego.

If we are to characterize politicians as such how do we characterize bankers, financiers and hedge fund managers? These "experts" of the markets seem to have destroyed them and now run to the very politicians we despise with open hands…. begging for help. I don't see much difference of character from the worst politician to the worst of CEO's. And yet I think it's a broad brush to paint them all as "dwarfs".

Always good to shine the light on oneself. How are any of us, a doctor, an economist or whatever you may be better then a politician or banker? Aren't we all just looking after are own self interest? Many assume the smartest people go for and make the most money. I think that's hogwash. Some of the smartest people labor away in research for a relative pittance. Indeed if one is highly driven by power and money banking and politics may attract you. The fact that there are many people who have little interest in politics and banking suggest that indeed self interest is not the sole guiding principle of many and it's the reason for the many to over see how our politicians and bankers function.

That was rambling and inconsistent… I don't feel like correcting it.

Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive. It's all about ego which we all have and few but the best can contain. Society is what contains it, what harnesses it. There is no separating the individual from the society. The inability to recognize this fact is my summation of the fault of classic liberalism.

vidyohs March 15, 2008 at 11:41 am

With the press in the USA being what it is, defintiely left leaning and biased accordingly, it will be interesting to watch how carefully they print articles and opinions on the candidates. Let's see how thorough they are in their "investigative" reporting and courageous in reporting the truths they "find", as well as the conclusions drawn from those.

Of the useless three potential presidents today, Obama is truly the one that brings the most potential divisiveness and incompetence to America. Can you imagine the corporations that Jackson and Sharpeton will be able to shake down with an Obama justice department behind them?

It is already obvious that they intend to fawn over Obama as they did over Gore and Kerry, but it hasn't kicked into high gear yet.

The press hasn't begun to destroy McCain as they did Bush, yet. Primarily because McCain is a ego maniac with leftist leanings himself. You want constitutional violations, you'll get in spades with McCain only they will be slightly different from the constitutional violations of Obama or Billary.

I notice in the press that Michelle Obama is being compared to Jackie Kennedy and their quest for the presidency as the new hope for a new Camelot.

I see studious avoidance of the issue of Obama's church and his intimate association with a black racist pastor, who isn't just a Jesse jackson, no no, he is a real good hater.

Now I might point out to you that what is not being said is that Michelle Obama and their children also attend that church and are exposed to the virulent hatred of that pastor and the supporting cast of other church memebers.

Now, remember that Michelle Obama also has said that she is proud of her country for the first time in her adult life, what is she proud of and why hasn't the press asked?

This is a man the press considers the new hope for America?

Both Obamas are touted as super lawyers. Super at what? Rusty Hardin, Dick Deguerin, Race-horse Haynes, Johnny Cochran, Joe Jawarski, Joe Jamail, these guys are "super lawyers" and have a track record to prove it. What have Michelle and Barack done in the legal field? What great defenses have they made, or what great prosecutions have they conducted?

Further more, a woman who came from poverty and attended one of the most prestigious universities in America, got her law degree, and has had a well paid career, did it on other people's money, probably yours and mine as government grants….and she is now proud of her country for the first time? She makes over $300,000 a year and has complained about having to pay off her student loans, and she is now proud of her country for the first time in her adult life? Everything I have said about Michelle is also true of Barack, only we have to factor in the blatant white hating in his history of family.

The hypocrisy of the press is high lighted by the fact that the mere harmless praise of a dead senator by the sitting House Majority leader, praise that was twisted because of the dead sentaor's association with prejudiced past into something racist by the Majority leader, got that majority pilloried in the press and hounded into resigning his position as Majority leader.

If it could be shown that McCain ever spent five mintues alone talking to David Duke, the press would rip him into retirement, and you know this is true.

Yet, Obama is getting a pass on his racism and the racism of his church, his pastor, his wife, and his children.

Can we say double standard, chilluns?

But on top of all that baggage, he has no qualifications or track record of leadership in any capacity. No substance to his ideas and obviously no idea of how he could even begin to hope to implement anything he talks about.

But, for the US press, my god how crazy cutting edge will it be to show the rest of the world we can elect a communist racist black. My God for the first time in history the USA will be a "world class" nation.

That is how I see the stupidity and bias of our Main Stream Media, and the mindless little sycophants that fawn to get coverage in it, or worse yet actually believe it.

Michael March 15, 2008 at 11:43 am

Not that I favor any politician, but what a whiny bunch. Go run for office if it is so easy to do. No excuses really for you to complain. It is a free country. If you do not like the jobs being done, run, change it yourself.

Not much insight from this kind of post other than PhDs have large ego of which to write about.

Mesa Econoguy March 15, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Speaking of tiny intellects:

"That was rambling and inconsistent… I don't feel like correcting it."
Posted by: muirgeo

Also ignorant, vacuous, and irrelevant. But let's ignore that for the time being.

"Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive."
Posted by: muirgeo

Let's have a group hug. Individualism is bunk.

And the plural of "dwarf" is "dwarves," is it not?

Sam Grove March 15, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive.

Clueless.
I'm not even going to bother attempting to explain it to you, thou individual.
Your progressive shield sheds clues like a ducks back sheds water.

———–

Point to any CEO that aspires to the power that politicians aspire to.

Point to any CEO that enjoys as much sycophantic press coverage as the typical D.C. politician.

Sam Grove March 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

To put it another way, muirgeo, why are you here?

We libertarians see things differently at a fundamental level. You appear to be uninterested in comprehending the difference and therefore in granting any validity to our arguments.

Because of this fundamental difference you shall make no progress in getting us to see the 'error' in our ways anymore than we have succeeded in the reverse.

You can continue to project your beneficent intentions on some unrealizable perfection of political government and we shall always understand that the nature of humans makes political government unstable at best and evil at its worst.

Your fealty to the idea of attaching elitist, progressive, beneficence to armed might will always be perceived by us as yet another threat to our liberty. A threat given full reign by good intentions and unmitigated by any palpable sense of the moral nature of political power.

Sam Grove March 15, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I once listened to a SF city government employee explain how he didn't think it possible to have an ethical job outside of government. I expect because, outside of government, employment was tied to the profit motive. (No, he didn't work for free.)

I doubt he was Marxist, but his perception of the world was certainly tainted by Marxist thought.

lowcountryjoe March 15, 2008 at 1:33 pm

The troll wants his questions to be answered and to be engaged in the discussion. Until the troll is caught in its own lies, of course, and also when the questions directed at the troll get too tough for him to answer…its then that the troll pulls a Houdini and it hopes we will all have short term memories.

vidyohs March 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm

BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS

MUIRDUCK EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR STUPIDITY TODAY, BY SAYING:

"Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive."

Our investigative reporter Mr. Vidyohs, checked with some in the migratory waterfowl community to get comments and was told by Mickey Mallard, "muirduck has always been a twit, and there are many in the migratory watefowl community that do not consider him one of us at all, we believe that he is actually a Loon. Either way he is an embarassment to our good name."

When asked to comment, Willy Woodduck said, "A loon, definitely a loon."

There you have it good folks, will muirduck find new ways to exceed the maximum allowable limits to stupidity?

Check back for the next blog and see.

Now for this commercial for Bird-B-Gone, a product that rids your pond of unwanted waterfowl. Back to you in the studio Sam and MesaEconoguy.

Sam Grove March 15, 2008 at 3:07 pm

In the intellectual garden where we nurse the seeds of liberty, ideas such as 'universal free health care', 'good' regulation of the economy, etc., are, and should be, seen as pernicious weeds that must rooted out at every opportunity.

To enable 'the people' to manage their government, said institution must be put in its proper place and kept there, else the government will 'manage' the people.

vidyohs March 15, 2008 at 5:22 pm

"Sir! Sir, Captain Smith, please a moment of your time for the press."

"Yes sir, thank you sir, That was a daring rescue of that child on the second floor of that burning building by Sgt Jones, do you have any comments on his actions?"

"well son, that's a good question, you in the press don't often see things as they really are. Sgt Jones was willed into spontaneious action by the collective firefighters here, he did not act as an individual. We have found that individual action has such disasterous consequences, so we always perform according to the colective will. Thank God all the firefighters here thought the same thing in relation to Sgt Jones otherwise he might have resorted to individual action."

"Thank you Captain Smith, there you have it folks, for the best results always depend on the collective."

vidyohs March 15, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Michael,

Blinded by your brilliance buddy:

"Not that I favor any politician, but what a whiny bunch. Go run for office if it is so easy to do. No excuses really for you to complain. It is a free country. If you do not like the jobs being done, run, change it yourself.

Not much insight from this kind of post other than PhDs have large ego of which to write about.

Posted by: Michael | Mar 15, 2008 11:43:53 AM"

And, of course you are right, you don't favor any politican, of course not.

And, you are right not to waste time on this blog, we wouldn't be able to keep up with your intellect.

Man, that is so obvious.

Sam Grove March 15, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Whiny?

You want to hear whiny, ask any progressive/liberal/lefty how Bush got into office.
The left is a stronghold of whiny…until they are in power, then the right becomes a stronghold of whiny.

Why would anyone tell someone who exhibits a disdain for politicians to aspire to become one. Talk about whiny.

muirgeo March 15, 2008 at 6:50 pm

"…are, and should be, seen as pernicious weeds that must rooted out at every opportunity."

Posted by: Sam Grove

And how do you root them out Sam? Force, education or the vote?
There is no other way right?

muirgeo March 15, 2008 at 6:56 pm

vidyohs,

I did not claim that individualism is bad or doesn't exist.

Did that fireman that made the rescue build the truck, drive the truck? Did he maintain the water, the water pressure and the fire hydrant that allowed the rescue?

We are all brothers vidyohs….. I need you and you need me.

Brian-NJ March 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm

After reading a sludge fest of posts I don't know where to begin, but I need someone to answer one question. What is the role of the State?

My brother says building roads and bridges and that is it. I envision a Jeffersonian republic with unified states doing everything they can to preserve individual state authority with minimal federal authority. We are well beyond that and the times have shown the necessity of certain standards, so I ask what is the standard to agree upon. I call myself a liberal because I believe in the ultimate recognition of individual liberty and see a republic which endures a certain level of trust unto each other for purpose of advancement. We learn how to do this through social experience, and manifest a social norm. This is why I see free trade as a necessity to advance a global community.

So what is the state's role? I believe standards have to be met. Without an IEEE 802.11 standard we would not be communicating liberally, without an MPEG standard we would not be able to view liberally, and so the state needs a set of standards to allow the nation to thrive. A minimum wage is a coherent way for all citizens to accept a standard for employment, but should never be raised. A law of regulation should be implemented for an acceptable age for employment, so on and so forth. A standard should be implemented for levels of pollution to avoid a tragedy of the commons, and each new innovation that exudes different waste then the current should be regulated according to the effects it has on the environment.

Now, you are wondering what may constitute degrees of pollution, or poor working conditions, because everyone has their own data and all the tests are subject to confirmation bias. Here is where I believe the great rift begins. We don't know, so we must figure it out as a collective society. The sides are chosen, the ideology is infused unto the players, and the data is tossed back and forth aggressively at each side like a game of bombardment.

What is the role of the state? To do nothing can only work if a set of standards is in place. Standards must be chosen by those whom we elect to make. Those decisions are made by the electorate who mostly rely on empirical evidence which is subject to logical truths. These truths are not wholly understood by the electorate so who's job is it to enlighten them? The State?

The State.

vidyohs March 15, 2008 at 9:01 pm

There there muirduck,

I know this statement:

"Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive."

was actually written in praise of individualism, it's just the others that haven't figured it out yet. Of course you've never said individualism is bad or doesn't exist, just that whereever it surfaces (as if from under a rock maybe?) it is ultimately self-destructive……and that's a good thing, right?

———–

New subject muirduck, where in my little creative exercise about the brave individual Sgt Jones did I say he drove a firetruck up to the second floor to save the child from the burning buidling? Where did I say he dragged a hose after him? Where was there any mention of water in his brave individualist act? And since there was no mention of trucks, hoses, water, water pressure and hydrants, WTF are you talking about.

Would you attempt to drive a fire truck up to the second floor of a burning building…….oops wrong question, you just might be that stupid.

Would you drag a hose with you in your attempt to hurry in and up to the second floor of a burning building in a rescue attempt where speed was of essence? Ooooops, wrong question, you probably would be that stupid.

Get out of the ditch muirduck and do so soon, you've lost it and you ain't agonna find it in the ditch.

No, muirduck, I don't need you. As a matter of fact the more you write the more convinced I am that polticial purging via retro-active birth control would be a good thing. Get my drift, podnuh?

vidyohs March 15, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Egads! That last sentence should read "political purging".

vidyohs March 15, 2008 at 9:04 pm

"And how do you root them out Sam? Force, education or the vote?
There is no other way right?

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 6:50:10 PM"

Hey Sam,
I root for force, the finality seems so attractive.

vidyohs March 15, 2008 at 9:16 pm

If you had to choose which of muirduck's many stupid statements it would be hard to top these two:

If you are advocating a free market system say for schools you need to show one that works.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 10, 2008 7:24:41 PM

or:

"Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 11:29:41 AM"

Note that the dates change but the stupidity remains constant. Intriguing, eh what?

I think I may just start collecting some of the duck's wisdoms and publish them down the road in phamplet form. It should make hilarious reading.

Sam Grove March 15, 2008 at 9:31 pm

And how do you root them out Sam? Force, education or the vote?

By pointing out the flaws in such thought and how they are anti-freedom, and thus, in the end, anti-human.

Sam Grove March 15, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Statements 1 and 2:

1 Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive.

2 I did not claim that individualism is bad

Without an IEEE 802.11 standard we would not be communicating liberally, without an MPEG standard we would not be able to view liberally, and so the state needs a set of standards to allow the nation to thrive.

These are industry standards developed by working groups of volunteers. I once participated in such a group.

Sam Grove March 15, 2008 at 10:09 pm

A minimum wage is a coherent way for all citizens to accept a standard for employment, but should never be raised. A law of regulation should be implemented for an acceptable age for employment, so on and so forth. A standard should be implemented for levels of pollution to avoid a tragedy of the commons, and each new innovation that exudes different waste then the current should be regulated according to the effects it has on the environment.

Says who and based upon what authoritative knowledge.

Many assertions are made. Counter assertions may be made.

In fact, by setting standards and having a commons, the government actually permits pollution and if said pollution causes anyone harm, they have little recourse if said pollution falls within the standards.

Streams in Ireland are privately owned and they are not polluted.

I once argued the minimum wage with a neighbor. He accepted the popular rationalization for minimum wage, but when I asked him: "If I were willing to work for you for $3 an hour, who else's business is it?"

He did answer: "No one's."

To 'manage' the economy is to treat humans as so many cattle.

vidyohs March 15, 2008 at 10:22 pm

"After reading a sludge fest of posts I don't know where to begin, but I need someone to answer one question. What is the role of the State?
Posted by: Brian-NJ | Mar 15, 2008 8:18:05 PM"

Brian-NJ,
I like your "sludge fest" instead of "slug-fest", creative and descriptive as well.

My own personal opinion is not an answer that will satisfy you, but in my opinion I believe that only you can answer your own question.

Ideas of what a state should be and what its role should be is going to vary according to the individual.

Yeah we can talk it to death and come to some sort of agreement that ends up with a thing that everyone can at least tolerate if not outright support.

I think the constitution and its first ten amendments do a remarkable job of defining what educated people of 1787 thought the role of government should be.

So, the answer to your question lies there in the constitution. If it isn't directly stated as a role or duty in the constitution then government should not be doing it now.

One example of this is the phrase, "promote the GENERAL welfare", FDR and LBJ used that phrase to do thing extra-constitutional, especially LBJ did.

The entitlement programs created using that phrase as justification were extra-constitutional because they weren"t "general" they were special and targeted to select individuals or groups. In addition to that there is no authority in the constitution to create entitlement programs for anyone or any group.

Next as a phrase that has caused and still causes much mischief is the phrase "regulate interstate commerce" that politicians have taken and twisted to mean something other than ensuring that interstate commerce is conducted on a level playing field of taxes and market rules. Attempting to use that phrase to micro-regulate the possesion of a gun within 1000 feet of a school was extra-constitutional.

And, last but not least all of us have a political belief which affects seriously our view of what the proper role of government is.

Good luck, Brian-NJ.

mcwop March 16, 2008 at 7:27 pm

And how do you root them out Sam?

You use the market as a feedback loop, and pricing mechanism. That is exactly what happened to Spitzer. Once the info was floated into the market press mechanism, then the market of public opinion drove the price/stock of Spitzer to such a low level that he had to declare bankruptcy – resign. He is free to do whatever, but not be Governor.

Andrew_S March 16, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Sorry to enter so late in the fray. Spitzer was outdone by stupidity, his investigations were fast approaching the banks bailout scam, and the public sadly prefers the simpletons view of political economics. As for any seasoned politician, I can only name a few that are not attorneys by trade and would understand what a citizens representative means. We were all sold out constitutionally by Woody Wilson, the ABA now controls our politics through it's princes and fiefdoms. If ever a public were so ignorant, we have it. Lord help us one and all.

Kent Gatewood March 17, 2008 at 3:28 am

Don't Ivy League schools charge based on need? How would either Obama come out with any debt?

muirgeo March 17, 2008 at 8:49 am

Hey Sam,
I root for force, the finality seems so attractive.

Posted by: vidyohs

Yep, I wonder how long until we get to see vidyohs hauled off by the authorities after shooting all the "socialist" from some tower in the middle of a town square.

matt March 17, 2008 at 9:06 am

i guess even broken idiots are right twice a day… turns out "dwarfs" is actually in the dictionary.

vidyohs March 17, 2008 at 11:01 am

Muirduck,

Congratulations, you've just added another topic of which you know nothing.

Strategy.

"Yep, I wonder how long until we get to see vidyohs hauled off by the authorities after shooting all the "socialist" from some tower in the middle of a town square.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 8:49:34 AM"

In today's world, if anyone started shooting socialists, in general he would start with the authorities. Which, of course, would leave no one to haul him off.

Part of strategy is knowing your enemy and acting accordingly.

Brian-NJ March 17, 2008 at 7:17 pm

-"Says who and based upon what authoritative knowledge."

Says our empirical data, you cannot refute certain truths culminated from the experience of those who made these arguments an existence. Setting blanket standards gives a level zero, go below it and you are sure to be more productive and championed, go above it and you will be punished.

-"In fact, by setting standards and having a commons, the government actually permits pollution and if said pollution causes anyone harm, they have little recourse if said pollution falls within the standards."

This is an acceptable means. Since we are not in Utopia we must compromise and be pragmatic about cause and effect. As long as the rule of law is clear.

-"Streams in Ireland are privately owned and they are not polluted."

I can only take your word on that, furthermore Ireland has not been a very industrial nation for very long.

My bottom line is I believe a standard need be set for everything, it gives a context for the aggregate ideas and implementations of all those involved in the system. With a clear picture of what is acceptable and not all can strive to the apex of that standard. Once it becomes painfully obvious to all that the apex has been attained, a natural evolution will expose the next course of action. I do agree that the more likely path will be through war but it does not necessarily need to, we may have evolved enough by that time to discover alternatives to aggression. I suppose my main point is, people need both freedom and order to progress.

vidyohs March 17, 2008 at 7:59 pm

"I suppose my main point is, people need both freedom and order to progress.
Posted by: Brian-NJ | Mar 17, 2008 7:17:25 PM"

I agree, Brian-NJ. I might add though that I think order can be achieved through agreement sans force entirely.

Standards are big in my life and in my thinking.

When I employed people I used to write little notes and post them just to try to get a message across and to increase their awareness of standards, and of the most devout enemy of standards, socialism.

"If you have no discernable personal standards, what is your opinion worth?"

"When all things are negotiable there are no standards, when there are no standards there is fear, confusion, instability, insecurity, and no morality."

"What civilization, nation, or organization has ever strengthened, improved, and progressed to higher levels as a direct result of the lessening of standards? The lessening of standards is degeneration."

And this one is from an unknown source:
"Morality means choice. Choice means priorities. Priorities mean a hierarchy. A hierarchy means something at the top, a standard, that is the greatest good. If you have no greatest good, you have no hierarchy of good. If you have no hierarchy of good, you have no priorities. If you have no priorities, you cannot make intelligent choices. If you cannot make intelligent choices, you have no morality."

Sam Grove March 17, 2008 at 11:07 pm

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon:

"Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order."

muirgeo March 18, 2008 at 7:46 am

Nope sorry Sam…. its the daughter.

matt March 18, 2008 at 9:21 am

muirgeo is the mother.

Sam Grove March 18, 2008 at 10:19 am

Nope sorry Sam…. its the daughter.

That's what authoritarians always say.
You're wrong and the state of the world is evidence.

Sam Grove March 18, 2008 at 11:08 am

Those who seek to establish their vision of order do not seek to mother liberty, but to establish order. Order is the goal, force is the means.

I knew that about you muirgeo, we understand what you believe.

Your pretense of establishing liberty through order is a fraud, our liberty is not your goal, for you believe that our intentions are selfish, which in your mind equals bad, therefore you seek to establish your order to contain our actions.

Hence liberty is not your intention, your vision of order is your intention. Do not pretend to us that you have any interest in our liberty. It is obvious to us that you that you do not.

vidyohs March 18, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Well spoken, Sam, very well spoken indeed.

muirgeo March 18, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Sam,

With out society you have NO liberty because the biggest thug with the biggest stick will take it away in a second. What do you think you can flash your liberty card at him and he will leave? That's why you choose to live in the society you claim to despise. In reality it's your best hope for liberty. Deep down you know this as much as you complain of being oppressed.

Your idea of liberty works as well as communism if all people are good and as appreciative of it as you and I are. A bit of an assumption on your part….No?

Liberty is very important to me but as a realist I understand that it is never absolute and defined by the society in which we live. I honestly believe the principles I support would increase our liberty not decrease it.

vidyohs March 18, 2008 at 8:27 pm

muirduck,

None of us honestly believe that you "honestly" believe anything.

It is pretty much a consensus that you are a troll, a socialist/communist/democrat/liberal/progressive with no freaking idea of what you think or what you believe because basically you're as ignorant as the day is long. The proof of the last statement of ignorance as the day is long is in your own postings, posting at all hours of the day by you are plain stupid.

Add on top of that the fact that everything you write is filtered through your socialist evangelical filter and all we see is a mishmash of ignorance and stupidity.

Separating the ignorance from the stupidity has long been recognized as not worth the effort.

Previous post:

Next post: