What...an...economic...moron.
This may be quixotic on my part but I really want you to entertain the possibility that not all of your "progressive" plans can be put into place...scarcity is real and socialists must deal with that reality as much as capitalists. Now, what happens when your pet goals don't get implemented, despite your absolute certainty that they are reasonable? Even if I do get "left behind" (whatever that means), the disputes among progressives themselves over what social good is more deserving cannot be solved by "reason and the pen". It will be, as it always has been, resolved at the point of a gun.
That's the sad mutation of civil society which progressivism imposes on the natural relationships among society's members: to the extent that the state must decide how resources will be used, social discourse transforms into political dispute, the war of all against all.
I know that this kind of reasoning can't stand up to your impulse to equalize outcomes for all of society's members, but just keep in the back of your mind if you will that scarcity cannot be wished away. And the next time you hear about the problems a progressive or socialist program faces, ask yourself honestly if there isn't a bit of unreality that your egalitarian ideals impose on any means to implement them.
Anti-progress? I'm in favor of progress that isn't define for me by other people, but is something that I can choose. What kind of progress is it that compels others to accept the goals and ends of one group of people over the incompatible goals of another?
Your last sentence says it all...you effectively admit that you would compel others to conform to your view of the "good" or "just" society because they would not voluntarily agree to it. That, right there, is the statist mentality which, if it continues to prevail, will return us to the primitive past of our distant ancestors. I don't want your "progress" at the point of a gun.
Hah, will Uncommon Knowledge interview the other candidates still in the race? ALL the other candidates? I'm not holding my breath. The Hoover Inst. has its favs.
A telling anecdote, but I'm not encouraged...for all of our technology and sophistication, the human race seems unable to absorb what reality teaches us, even when it does so with the severity of a Catholic nun. That people still cling to socialism and egalitarianism as workable social theories despite the logical and empirical arguments against them, strikes me as a sad condition to be laid a the foot of ignorance and wish-thinking.
A collectivism that aims at preserving a particular industry such as the automobile industry, is no less socialist than on that aims to equalize wealth through tax redistribution. The difference is entirely one of WHO benefits. Those who love liberty will look at "Detroit" and say, if it goes bankrupt, so much the better for consumers, for if we are not better of in our position by virtue of what producers can provides (cheap, high-quality goods), what does the concept of "welfare" or "standard of living" mean?
I don't find algae-based fuels anymore laughable than I do wind energy, sawgrass or corn-based ethonol. Why? Because I don't know what these technologies can provide relative to consumer demand for energy. What I DO KNOW is that the market (the free market) can coordinate consumer demands for energy with the scarce means of generating energy through price signals. What CANNOT be done is to foist a technology on a society (an economy) and demand (coerce) its acceptance in any way that could benefit the society as a whole. That is a logical impossiblity, and the failure to understand that simple apodictic truth is the touchstone of our age.
It very well may be that "green energy" is the future of energy production, but it is not today. And it is telling that some Americans believe that others should be forced to pay for their utopian dreams, even when their obvious failure is plain to see. Expect to see more than global warming in your neighborhood should we continue down this path of central planning.
Haven't seen this new on, but I thought Extras was hilarious. Stephan Merchant as the incompetant agent was one of the best characters in comedic TV I've seen in a while.
Of course, if you find Gervais' atheism a reason to hate his work, then I guess you wouldn't be satisfied with anything he did.
Government made The Mob just like government is sustaining the sadistic anti-social drug cartels and gangs that infest our country. Just saw that ignoramus Bill O'Reilly fulminating against marijuana like it was sin itself. Until we rid ourselves of this desire to control every aspect of a person's life we will be beset by these social distortions. Individual liberty is the answer; private social institutions that have the ability to influence without resorting to force will better control our moral failures than the heavy hand of authoritarianism.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Branch