Dr. Helen Smith, contributing editor for Pajamas Media, distinguished Psychologist, and wife of InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds writing in
Men's Daily, Aug. 3. Excerpt on liberal college professors supressing diversity of views at law schools across the U.S.:
I am not a Conservative…
Yes, but I am, at least I am a right-leaning libertarian which is adequately different from liberal dogma that it counts as Conservative. Actually, anyone who does not toe the liberal line is considered a Conservative by some of these open-minded academics
I wonder how many conservatives avoid the academic world altogether because of the hostility toward their political views. Law schools are better than most in allowing for different politics but if this is the most tolerant of the academic world, how intolerant are other graduate schools and their professors? I shudder to think about it.
Dr. Helen Smith, contributing editor for Pajamas Media, distinguished Psychologist, and wife of InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds writing in Men's Daily, Aug. 3. Excerpt on liberal college professors supressing diversity of views at law schools across the U.S.:
6 Bloviations:
Thus Moron, you answer your own question. The free market, which BTW, resembles nature and evolution, doesn't cater to a safety net for the poor. In fact, the market and evolution favor those that can do. Anyone that would posit part of government's job is to cater to those that can't do is as far from libertarian as can be.
Lesson one:
The government doesn't earn money, it takes it by force from individuals that use their time and labor to create it.
Lesson two:
This commodity that humans have, namely time, is a commodity that cannot be restored. Once spent, it's gone and for a collective to take it by force without consent, and I don't mean de facto consent via a hobson's choice, is an act of nihilism at best.
Lesson three:
Anyone who would think it's not only ok for the government to take money and therefore time away from people without their consent is a socialist/communist piece of shit.
Lesson four:
The only thing you lean on is the wall well taking a piss.
Two weeks ago, I wrote a post giving one reason I only lean libertarian: that the admittedly inefficient government is more likely to provide a humane safety net for the poor than if it were left to private donations.
I thus argued for replacing the government-provided safety net with a government-mandated one: Taxpayers would required to donate the money to the charity(ies) of their choice, which could include the government.
Here I explain another perhaps more central reason why I only lean libertarian.
Philosophies have what I call a trumping postulate: a principle so core to that philosophy that it trumps all other considerations. Libertarians' trumping postulate is freedom: if a policy infringes on human freedom, that trumps all other considerations.
My trumping postulate is what I call utilitarianism with an exception: I am in favor of any policy that results in the greatest good for the greatest number so long as that doesn't require a clearly inhumane violation of a person's freedom, e.g., excessive punishment such as putting someone in jail for smoking marijuana, let alone torturing five infants to save 100 lives.
I assert that all trumping postulates are not of equal merit. How does one ascertain merit? I believe that if we gathered the world's million most thoughtful people, the large majority would agree that my trumping postulate is wiser than the libertarian one.
Of course, a popularity contest, even among the world's wisest million, is not a perfect way to decide the wisdom of something but what I believe is a better approach is tautological: that doing the greatest good for the greatest number without clearly inhumane violations is, by definition, apriori, the benchmark by which all policies should be judged.
That said, I worry about the expansion of the U.S. government. Ever more often, when there's a problem, only government-provided solutions are given serious consideration. The result is almost invariably inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse, which worsens the longer a government program exists: the bureaucracy expands, overlapping agencies and new laws create labyrinthine complications and contradictions, and even if priorities change, the law doesn't sunset.
For me, a wiser approach is this: When there's a problem, first think, "Will time take care of it more cost-effectively than any intervention?" If not, might a private sector solution be first tried? And only if not, should a government-provided approach be pilot-tested.
Well, The Right Guy,
Your epithet aside, I might point out that not all spending is unjustifiable.
The Moron, Ph.D.
www.martynemko.com
martynemko.blogspot.com
I work with PhDs that are morons, every day. We have to tell them not to look at the LED in a computer mouse less they damage their eyes, and even when we tell them not to answer phishing emails about account information, they still do. A degree doesn't replace common sense or intelligence.
As far as spending goes, as a PhD, you should know there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Post a Comment