Friday, January 22, 2010

Quotable Krauthammer

From the sharpened quill of Mr. Krauthammer in today's Washington Post:

After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent. . . .

You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. . . .

Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don't want it, could they possibly have a point?

"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."

I say: Let them sleep.

Heh. Works for me.


MK said...

It's another thing the left have in common with islam, an inability to take any responsibility and look at themselves.

I'm with you too, let em' sleep.

OBloodyHell said...

> It's another thing the left have in common with islam, an inability to take any responsibility and look at themselves.

MK, as I have maintained for a long time now, here as well as elsewhere -- if you want to seek a single, almost uniform quality which The Left has "in spades" (no pun intended) it is an essential lack of wisdom and/or the qualities identified as "common sense" -- that is, the ability to learn from mistakes. Their own, or, preferably, those of others.

"Fools say that they learn by experience. I prefer to profit by others' experience."
- Bismarck -

It is this deeply rooted foolishness which allows them to endlessly justify their support of socialist and collectivist agendas in spite of their eternal association with misery, totalitarianism, and economic ruin.

"They just haven't been implemented properly -- they've got to work, they make 'perfect sense'"

They are correct in that the problem lies in that they haven't been implemented properly: As long as you define "implemented properly" as equivalent to "never implemented at all".

Try it -- whenever you see or hear something really, really stupid from a lefty, consider WHY it's so stupid.

My bet is that most, if not all, the time, it will be "stupid" because there is a host of predecessor evidence that the notion is wrong, regardless of the idea's appeal. And the lefty is ignoring all that useful information and going with what they want to believe rather than self-evident fact.

"Taking responsibility and looking at yourselves" are parts of what makes one develop wisdom and common sense.

If you take responsibility, then you must examine what you did and try to understand why it didn't work... so you won't make the same error again. Avoid responsibility, and you need never do that at all.

"Looking at yourself" is also part of that, because when you do, you are led to see your own unconscious biases, and desires.

These, too, are part of what lead people into error, and a wise man will allow for (or at least try to...) when they are making decisions.

Think about that. It's valuable in any argument with someone where you're interested in debunking the Libtard position -- either because the person is a libtard (a waste of time on some levels, but good intellectual exercise, and good for forcing a re-analysis of your own views for flaws or invalidated positions), or because the opposition actually wants to understand where the libtards are wrong (good for dealing with young people, who lack the Real World Experience to have wisdom, and hence often get led astray by libtard plausibility).


OBloodyHell said...

"Karl Marx is to economists what Khalil Gibran is to philosophers.
In the real world there is no Marxist program, but inside the human
brain he tickles the mood centers."

- Alexis A. Gilliland, 'Long Shot for Rosinante' -

Understanding human nature is one of the things which libtards continually fail to include in their policies, ideas, and programs. Marxism seems like it should work and work well -- but it ignores human nature. It ignores what actually motivates people to choose to do A over doing B.

It also equates time without considering experience and training. Put me into a kitchen with flour, milk, and eggs, and you'll get a barely edible mess. Put a sous-chef with years of experience into the same situation, and you'll get a culinary wonder. We ain't the same person (I'll kick his ass in front of a computer, mind you), and you can't ignore that when deciding who should do what.

He should be making the food, I should be programming the computers.

But Marxist economic theory doesn't grasp that inequality. Marx himself eventually even saw it:

"Marxist truth!", sneered Skashkash. "Marx himself didn't believe it!"
"[Prove it!]"
"Very well," replied Skashkash. "First, Karl Marx held two values above all
others -- the revolution and scientific truth. Second, Marx, a man of
undoubted genius, died without ever finishing his magnum opus, 'Das
Kapital'. A genius does not die without finishing his life's work - I could
cite you examples as nauseum - but Marx lingered for years without
finishing 'Das Kapital'."
"So what? He got old and sick and couldn't write, but what he wrote was
the truth."
"No, the reason that Marx never finished his work was that his two prime
values, revolution and scientific truth, were in conflict. He had, as you
will doubtless recall, set up a progression of social orders, from chatel
slavery, to feudalism, to capitalism, to what he called socialism - a kind
of unspecified utopia. In fact, there was another step after capitalism
available for his study, but he suppressed it, because it was incompatible
with his notion of revolution. He called it the 'Oriental Mode of Production'
and it was amply demonstrated in Chinese history. It is capitalism made
subordinate to The State by means of innumerable petty regulations. You
could describe it as enlightened petty despotism, or as symbiosis of the
individual and the collective. Had Marx elected to follow scientific truth
instead of revolution, he would have predicted what happened in the U.S.
after the Great Depression. He would have been a major prophet."

- Alexis A. Gilliland, 'Long Shot for Rosinante' -


OBloodyHell said...

Marxism's functioning depends on ignoring the essential truth of where Value lies: "The value of a thing is what that thing will bring."

Value varies from person to person and from situation to situation.

Offer me a choice between a pound of gold and a pound of water at the moment, I'll choose the gold, thanks.

If I'm naked in the middle of the desert days away from any kind of shelter or sustenance, which of those do you think I pick?

Offer me a pound of comic books, or a pound of Romance novels, I can tell you in a second which I want. Others may well make a different choice. And that's fine either way.

The Value of things-in-general, across a random collection of individuals and situations, varies. And that's what Free Trade pricing is designed specifically to deal with.

And that pricing mechanism indicates, indirectly, to producers, what it is people want, and does so in a far, far better way than the guesses from some "production expert", or from some factory operator who happens to have a lot of excess plastic in their hands, but no metal. Sans pricing information, the factory operator may as well make plastic bags, rather than trading it to someone else for metal to make stoves with. Hey, his factory made something!

If people don't want it, what difference does that make to him?

You can start to see from considerations like this where Marxism, and collectivism itself, falls apart.

But the bozo lefty won't apply such considerations, they are just Certain It Works.

If it doesn't, then, well, "You just aren't Doing It Right".

And that's my essential point, here, by use of Marxism/collectivism as an example of a favorite libtard idea which can't work but nevertheless, they continue to be enamored of. They're fools to not grasp it, but... that's the essential quality that makes them libtards in the first place.