Comments (9)

• David Spellman

  If a man breaks into your house and takes your money, we call him a thief and prosecute him for stealing.

  If a group of your neighbors break into your house and takes your money, we call them a mob and call the police to stop the robbery.

  If the majority of people in your community votes to take your money, we call it Democracy and elevate it to the highest civic virtue.

  Published: March 3, 2009 11:20 AM

• Mike Cuneo

  David-

  The funniest part of what you are saying is that we aren't even getting the option to vote to take each other's money...the gov't just goes ahead and bails out whoever they deem "too big to fail" or some such nonsense. I guess it's not so funny since me and you are the ones footing the bill.

  Then again, I brought this point up to my dad, he asked if I was scared about "being on the hook for all this money" and I just laughed and looked at him like "me? on the hook for what?" I never voted, I never agreed to any of this spending, and the only reason I pay taxes is because the alternative leaves me even worse off. It's that "lesser of two evils" thing that we were all supposed to vote for.

  Which brings me to another fun point. If you have the choice of cutting off your leg or dying, clearly cutting off your leg is the "lesser of two evils" and therefore cutting off your leg isn't evil, at least in the government's eyes. Strange.

  Published: March 3, 2009 11:26 AM

• Abhilash Nambiar

  I know this point, it is the point that no one likes to get and regrets when they get it. It is the kind of point that requires you to give up what you cherish what is true. But I will be patient. Elected leaders have to do what they need to in four years.We the unelected on the other hand have our whole lifetime.

  Published: March 3, 2009 11:30 AM

• Barry Loberfeld

  FROM "Liberalism: HIstory and Future":
  
  
  

  As universal principles, the self-interest of capitalism and the self-sacrifice of socialism have both given way to the "special interests" of pressure groups. Consequently, we no longer really have political philosophies so much as political lobbies hiding under the wool. Feminism is perhaps but one of the more obvious examples. This is not an ideology but an advocacy group that will say whatever its takes to load the dice in its members' favor. Chants of "privacy" and "choice" are sufficient to establish a "woman's right to control her own body" (abortion), but not enough to establish a man's right to control his own mind (free speech). The politics of prohibition? While feminists widely dismiss that notion that the outlawing of guns will mean that only outlaws will have guns, they regard virtually as divine revelation the notion that the outlawing of abortion will mean that only outlaws ("back-alley butchers") will perform abortions. (Their conservative opponents, who ostensibly flip the issues, share this fair-weather recognition of the law of unintended consequences.) And while they oppose individualism and defend popular democracy, does the former find a better friend -- or the latter a fiercer foe -- than the feminist fighting to maintain the wall of separation between Abortion and Plebiscite?
  

  When a principle or premise defends one's case, it is affirmed; when it doesn't, it's denied. Think about these two statements:
  

  
  a) Individuals have the right to engage in consensual private behavior even if it can harm them.
  

  
  b) The government has the duty to stop individuals from engaging in consensual private behavior that can harm them.
  

  
  So, which does our "liberal" believe in? Well, if the issue's smoking, the second. But if it's "sodomy," then the first. And the "conservative"? Just the reverse. What prevails is a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't commitment to any tenet. Moral integrity falls to personal prejudice, and hypocrisy becomes the standard of "social democracy."
  

  Soon enough, however, such hypocrisy on everyone's part becomes impossible to miss, as witness the exchange of barbs on the sundry "debate" shows. And "victimology" -- of which the above feminism is definitely one of the more obvious examples -- collapses when everyone eventually claims (on one basis or another) victim status. The "end of ideology" truly has arrived. Laws are passed, not with reference to philosophic principles, but only with an eye on the polls; "social democracy" devolves into majoritarian democracy -- a one-party democracy, where Republicans and Democrats "run towards the center" as closely as possible. Realizing James Madison's great fear in Federalist No. 10, the country has come to that stage where "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority."
  

  There is, of course, another conceivable direction for the mixed economy:

  FOR THE FULL ARTICLE, CLICK HERE

  Published: March 3, 2009 11:50 AM

• Doug G

  Time Kern's article is very and agree 99%. The part that showed some ignorance is when she calls "sustainable" — the new catchword used to limit all innovation and progress.
  That's just wrong.
  To me, if some process is not sustainable, you need to rethink the process. Better living by better design is sustainable in it's nature.
  "limit all inovation and progress" Come on, that's just a short cut to thinking.

  
  

  Published: March 3, 2009 1:41 PM

• greg

  While I understand your position, I am willing to accept the pitfalls to live in our democratic society. If you don't respect the concept of majority rule, you can leave or you can work within the system to get the majority to adopt your position.

  Your class may have better off by supporting the single book give away by providing the class with a member that is better informed by reading your book. I go back to WWII when government was spending money to find a better underwater adheasive. Through time and expense they came up with a product that solved their underwater repairs. That product was fiberglass and through that investment, a huge industry expanded.

  Published: March 3, 2009 2:44 PM

• Ace

  "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting over what to eat for lunch"
  -Benjamin Franklin

  Published: March 3, 2009 3:06 PM

• FTG

  I loved that illustration!

  "Free Money" - Hilarious, and to the point. Sweet!

  Published: March 4, 2009 1:10 AM

• filc

  @ Greg,

  Then you will have to accept the lowest common denominator in all future officials and accept the coming socialism of the future with that mentality.

  Democracy will always tend to the lowest common denominator.

  The majority is un-educated on issues of importance and un-concerned. Democracy offers an avenue for people to offload their personal responsibilities onto the suckers known as the "elect". This is what people want. They want someone else to deal with the issues of their lives instead of dealing with it themselves.

  By voting you are essentially offering authoritative consent up to your elected official to preside over you. With so much trust placed into the elect you would think we would be more responsible with whom we chose. It's all very commune like don't you think?

  Published: March 6, 2009 2:25 AM