As seen through the eyes of Katniss Everdeen and Harry Potter. In spite of its relentless leftism, the entertainment industry keeps producing anti state blockbusters. Viewed from these Mega hits we don't like our overlords very much, do we. Link below. Well worth the read.
REMEMBER WHO THE REAL ENEMY IS.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2013/12/14/remember-who-the-real-enemy-is/
Like a lot of conservatives I just assume that leftists are aware of the overwhelming empirical evidence that the state monopoly is incredibly bad at delivering any kind of service but choose to overlook this salient fact in the interests of their other priorities.. Then something like O'care comes along. Did they really think that dozens of state and Federal bureaucracies could replace in one fell swoop a complex insurance distribution system? Latest fiasco from CT at the link.
Their touching naivete gives me hope that they're not the Leninist automatons of my nightmares.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/181008/
So do you think minimum height laws make kids taller?
http://www.samizdata.net/2013/12/minimum-wages-minimum-heights/
The Obami legislative agenda over the past five years reminds me of nothing so much as the gnome business plan from South Park:
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: Profits
Except the Obami were focused on power as in:
Phase 1: Type up tens of thousands of pages of incomprehensible legalese.
Phase 2: ?????
Phase 3: Power
But right now the.?????s are absolutely chewing their asses off.
Which is kinda cool. I'm trying to imagine the Obami as assless gnomes. Yes! Beautiful.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtO5sxLapAts
The erstwhile reality-based community is having a tough time of it lately, though. Most infamously, Obamacare is foundering on the flagrant deceptions used to sell it, exposed every day by the workings of the law in reality.
Many liberals still don't want to acknowledge the rather straightforward fact that if you mandate more insurance benefits in the so-called Affordable Care Act, insurance will cost more. QED. You might be able to cushion the cost increase for some people with subsidies, but not for everyone, and the underlying insurance is still more—not less—expensive.
Syndicalism informed corporatist theory by arguing that society could be divided by professional sectors of the economy, an idea that deeply influenced the New Deals of both FDR and Hitler. But Sorel's greatest contribution to the left—and Mussolini in particular—lay elsewhere: in his concept of "myths," which he defined as "artificial combinations invented to give the appearance of reality to hopes that inspire men in their present activity." For Sorel, the Second Coming of Christ was a quintessential myth because its underlying message—Jesus is coming, look busy—was crucial for organizing men in desirable ways. . . .
Even more impressive was Sorel's application of the idea of myth to Marxism itself. Again, Sorel held that Marxist prophecy didn't need to be true. People just needed tothink it was true. Even at the turn of the last century it was becoming obvious that Marxism as social science didn't make a whole lot of sense. Taken literally, Marx'sDas Kapital, according to Sorel, had little merit. But, Sorel asked, what if Marx's nonsensicalness was actually intended? If you looked at "this apocalyptic text . . . as a product of the spirit, as an image created for the purpose of molding consciousness, it . . . is a good illustration of the principle on which Marx believed he should base the rules of the socialist action of the proletariat." In other words, Marx should be read as a prophet, not as a policy wonk. That way the masses would absorb Marxism unquestioningly as a religious dogma.
Every side in a political argument tends to gild the lily, but the acknowledgment of any downside is particularly devastating to liberal presumptions. Liberals are inherently activists on domestic policy, and to make the strongest possible case for action, you need certainty not nuance, cost-free benefits not painful trade-offs, blissful promises not unintended consequences.I agree that everybody tends to "gild the lily" in favor of their preferred policies. But inherent to conservatism is the understanding that nothing in this life is all upside. To govern is to choose. Every policy is a trade-off. Every gain comes at a loss -- somewhere. This core understanding explains why conservatism is more empirical than liberalism, more "reality based." That's because at the heart of mainstream liberalism is the belief that, with the right application of intellect and data, experts (i.e. liberals) can create perfect policies that are good for everyone and everything, not just as a matter of "social justice" but of objective analysis. In the 1990s Bill Clinton used to insist that any suggestion of a trade-off was a "false choice." X never has to come at the expense of Y. Al Gore used to talk about his climate proposals as if there was no downside to them at all. It was broken-window fallacies for as far as the eye could see.
Consider the minimum wage. Rarely do liberals truly grapple with the possibility—supported by some, but not all research—that it suppresses employment. If they did, they would be more cautious about advocating a higher minimum wage in a soft job market and less scornful of opponents.
The human haters and compassion fascists will be so pissed. How are they going to control us without scarcity?
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/180845/
