Quote of the Day: Hey, Limited Government is Hot Again!

Via Samizdata comes this thought:

"It has been delightful to wallow in the grief of triggered leftists. Yes, their candidate lost. And no, they have neither self-awareness nor irony and that is bloody hilarious. But for classical liberals/libertarians or even smaller state Conservatives, the man who won is by no means our guy.

... I am far from depressed by Trump’s victory, though I agree with him in so few respects. Not least because our statist foes are about to relearn a proper fear of excessive state power and in particular of such undemocratic and unconstitutional devices as presidential executive orders."

Quote of the Day: David Mamet on Communism

Playwright David Mamet has just written a piece for the Daily Beast.  It's all worth a look, and it gives us the quote of the day:

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.  

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

It's depressing just how readily this historical fact has been forgotten/buried by statist educators, activists, and politicians.

Steyn on OWS: "Anarchists for Statism"

Take a look.  *Sigh.*

Quote of the Day: Castro on the Cuban Model of Life and Government-Run Economy

According to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg who interviewed Fidel Castro recently, the Cuban said, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."   Wait, what?  Here's a blurb from Goldberg's report:

I asked him if he believed the Cuban model was still something worth exporting.

"The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore," he said.

This struck me as the mother of all Emily Litella moments. Did the leader of the Revolution just say, in essence, "Never mind"?

I asked Julia to interpret this stunning statement for me. She said, "He wasn't rejecting the ideas of the Revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under 'the Cuban model' the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country."  [My emphasis -- MM]

Julia pointed out that one effect of such a sentiment might be to create space for his brother, Raul, who is now president, to enact the necessary reforms in the face of what will surely be push-back from orthodox communists within the Party and the bureaucracy.  Raul Castro is already loosening the state's hold on the economy. He recently announced, in fact, that small businesses can now operate and that foreign investors could now buy Cuban real estate.

Well, well, well.  Look who's finally got a taste of cold hard reality.  Hm: "the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country."  HEH.  Statists, listen up!  Oh, and didn't I just post about this sort of idea?

Quote of the Day: Culture Clash in Domestic Politics

A Brit looks at current American politics and compares it to class-based portions of British politics.  It's an interesting read, and the following is our quote of the day:

The president's determination to transform the US into a social democracy, complete with a centrally run healthcare programme and a redistributive tax system, has collided rather magnificently with America's history as a nation of displaced people who were prepared to risk their futures on a bid to be free from the power of the state.

BINGO.  Look at how succinctly and piquantly he has identified one of the core problems of the Obama Administration's domestic policy initiatives: we don't want European-style big government statism.

Even more quotable goodness after the fold below:

Fish Pedicures and the Ever-Increasing Nanny State

Interesting! As always, John Stossel and Nick Gillespie discuss topics with their deft touch and good cheer. Come on, there they are, talking about the nanny state while sitting up to their ankles in fish. It's making a humorous point.

I add also the usual caveat that freedom comes with responsibility, especially personal responsibility.

Oh, and would YOU ever try a fish pedicure? I'm not sure about me, though I am sure that it's a decision I want to make for myself. I do love traditional pedicures, though!

Nerd Analysis: Harvard Economics Professor on Government-Run Health Care

Read this!

Quote of the Day: Vodkapundit on the Cap-and-Trade Energy Bill

Eloquence from Vodkapundit as the bill passes the House of Representatives:

Never have so few stolen so much from so many to achieve so little.

The cap-and-trade energy debacle is both a massive tax increase and an even more massive government power grab. I suppose that in scope its ambition is exceeded only by its stupidity. What are people thinking to justify raising energy prices in a time of soaring unemployment and economic recession?

China: Ghangzhou's New One-Dog-Only Policy

"One child only" and now "one dog only"? Behold a fresh round of heavy-handed statist dicta in China. Here's a poignant little blurb:

GUANGZHOU, China - Mrs. Chen can't imagine abandoning one of her two best friends: her scruffy terrier mutt and a white fluffy Pekingese mix with buggy eyes.

But that's what the government in this southern Chinese city wants the middle-aged housewife to do when a one-dog policy takes effect in Guangzhou.

Beginning July 1, each household can raise only one pooch. The regulation won't be grandfathered in, so families with two or more dogs will apparently have to decide which one gets to stay.

"It's a cruel regulation. These dogs are like family. How can you keep one and get rid of the others?" said Chen, who declined to give her full name because she feared the police would track her down and seize the dogs.

Poor Mrs. Chen. Notice too why she refused to give her full name to the journalist.

And hey, where's PETA in all this?

Quote of the Day: Leftism and Good Intentions

I wish I could have said it so pithily myself:

It is one thing to assume (at least, for the sake of argument) that a liberal like Obama desires what is good for America. It is another thing to assume that a liberal actually knows what is good for America, or that, knowing what is good, he will actually pursue the good competently and persistently. The history of liberalism disproves any such assumption.

We may give liberals credit for their good intentions – how else shall they pave the road to hell? — but we can never credit liberals with good sense.

If life has taught me anything, it's to be extremely wary of pie-eyed dreamers and messianically-minded do-gooders with good intentions and no common sense.

Furthermore, as a teacher, I've heard the "good intentions" argument from students more often than I care to remember -- usually in the form of "I tried, Miss Minerva, I really, really tried!" But in the end, all I grade are RESULTS. In my experience, the more a person cries about having and exercising "good intentions," the worse his or her actual results -- and, subsequently, actual grades. Sorry, folks, having good intentions does not absolve you of responsibility for failure either in the classroom or in real life. I guess I'm just horribly objective and merciless that way.

When Governments Dream of Utopia: Equality of Result...or Else!

I am too tired to rant about the inherent foolishness of it all. I'll let Professor Hanson do the ranting. He's better at it anyway!

I add the new blog tag "social engineering," because I think we're going to be seeing a lot more of it, driven by the elite/governing class who think they know better than us individuals how we should live our own lives.

For the last time: there is no way to guarantee equality of result without introducing punitive measures and glorifying mediocrity at the expense of real merit. The only thing we can aim for is a reasonable attempt at equality of opportunity.

Also: we'd be a lot better off if, instead of whining about equality and "level playing fields," we stopped playing the grievance violin, took responsibility for ourselves, and adopted a WORK ETHIC. As the Roman poet Virgil wrote centuries ago, labor omnia vincit -- "hard work conquers all." The man's got a point.

OH YES, A DEAD WHITE EUROPEAN IMPERIALIST ELITIST MALE SPEAKS FOR ME. I expect the campus diversity-multiculturalism thought-police to come bursting through my door at any moment now.

It's Tax Day 2009

Oh, maddening tax code, how from hell's heart I stab at thee!

So much going on today. Feel like a tea party? (By the way, the media coverage has been pretty bad, both in terms of some outlets blatantly dumping on the idea -- most of the MSM, I'm talking to you -- and other outlets blatantly promoting it -- and that's you, Fox News.) Check out one law prof's take on the tea party movement.

Tax Day and the entire tax structure and industry are just begging to be satirized. Maybe we can laugh our way through our W-2s and 1040s with a little help from the indispensable Onion. Satire Alert -- take a look at its fake (and slightly Kafka-flavored) news story, "2008 Tax Records Reveal Sasha Obama Made $136 in Allowance Money."

Is the entire idea of high (and practically confiscatory) taxes (plus a ballooning and increasingly interventionist government) a type of collectivism? Not to mention statism. Blurb (though the whole thing's worth a look):

Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights. Your life, your existence, your interests and the product of your labor now belongs to the group. If the group needs a bailout, health care, green cars, low mortgage rates, a job, an education—anything at all, it now becomes your responsibility to provide it, whether you want to or not.

You see it in both the redistributive legislation, which takes money from people who’ve earned it and give it to those who have not, along with the language itself. Phrases like “we’re all in it together”, “I am my brother’s keeper” and “shared sacrifice” boil down to the same frightening reality: You are here to serve. And unlike the charity of volunteerism, the “will of the people” is implemented by force, not by voluntary trade.

This is a profoundly anti-American ideal. From the original Boston Tea party came the Declaration of Independence, which articulates the morality of individual rights. In this country, you are born free with the absolute moral right to make of your life what you will.

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” refers to your life, your liberty and your happiness. America was a truly revolutionary country because, for the first time in history, every man was born not with a duty to serve the king, the senate or society, but with a moral right to live his own life and pursue his own happiness. The Tea Parties are protests against government power and in support of a society in which man has the right to live selfishly for his own sake, not sacrifice himself for the “common good.”

But for collectivists, sacrifice is seen as absolute. You’re expected to sacrifice for your neighbor, your government, your country. For AIG and Citigroup, deadbeat homeowners or auto workers, whatever or whomever the geniuses in Washington decide has more rights than the rest of us. The individual has a value only as a means to the end for society. His life, his dreams, his income, are Uncle Sam’s to marshal and allocate.

Yuck! (Sounds like it's time to "go Galt"?)

On other fronts, I have some tax-errific video for you too:




Oh, and people? Getting the hapless, tin-eared Joe "Gaffemeister" Biden to cheerlead for higher taxes is a really, really dumb idea.


Here's something a bit more comedic:

Rep. Paul Ryan on Obamanomics

Here's a little video worth watching. Rep. Paul Ryan makes some sensible points -- and, frankly, he's easy on the eyes to boot.



Anyway, I can't help wondering whether conservative/libertarian/free market guys tend to be more attractive than their statist/leftist counterparts. Or maybe I've just had the pleasant luck to run into video lectures/interviews with attractive fellow thought-criminals -- like this fellow. Certainly it seems a given that these guys have a much better sense of humor and grip on reality than their shrill, hostile opposite numbers.

Yeah, it's Friday afternoon and I'm starting to lose my focus. Oh, so sue me. It's time to log off, meet some friends, and have some fun!

Sign of the Apocalypse: MM and Putin Agree on Something

I stumbled across this just today -- and it's quite old -- but I was startled by some of the ideas in it. I'm talking about Vladimir Putin's address at Davos.

You know that I almost never agree with Putin on anything, so I'm calling it absolutely a sign of the apocalypse that I found this bit of his speech pretty close to something that I might say:

True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.

The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

OMG!

Are you trying to say that Putin -- PUTIN! -- has a better grasp on capitalism than some current US politicians?!