The “Libertarian Party” in the United States is essentially a “vote splitting” exercise – it came as no surprise to me when it turned out that many “Libertarian” candidates were funded (whether they knew it or not) by Democrats – hoping to split the Republican vote.
Is reform possible?
The lady is gloomy about these matters – and there is much evidence in favour of her position. Indeed it could be argued the lady is not gloomy enough – for example what “brave moves to cut government spending” in Britain?
Even when someone is elected who does want to reduce taxes and government spending, for example Governor Brownback of Kansas, the courts (or some other institution) may simply say “you can not do that” (even though the courts can not produce any words from the Constitution of Kansas to actually support their arbitrary power).
New Zealand did indeed reduce the size and scope of government. Although it is not true that all of the reforms were undertaken by the Labour party – although some indeed were.
However, the basic idea that government was there to hand “free” education and healthcare was not challenged (although most people in New Zealand are talking out forms of private health insurance) and the number of people on welfare has actually greatly increased in New Zealand (and was increasing when the lady spoke).
Government spending in New Zealand and the United States (and basically everywhere else) is overwhelmingly on government health, education and welfare schemes.
Getting rid of American farm subsidies would indeed be a good thing – but the basic problem (the unsustainable “entitlement programs”) would still be growing.
“Log rolling” and so on is actually in decline in the United States – roads to nowhere (and so on) are in decline.
Even China is introducing (not getting rid of – introducing) government backed pensions, and various welfare services.
As is India.
Even South Korea and Taiwan are.
The “Social Justice” ideology must be fought at some point – for it is Social Justice ideology (NOT “special interest groups”) is the real problem.
However, I agree that only in a crises (an absolute crises) can a fundamental reform against “Social Justice” take place.
As for humour.
“The Daily Show” and the “Colbert Report” work for a bigger government not a smaller one – it is astonishing that the young lady does not see this.
They are not the same sort of show as Penn and Teller’s show – they are almost the exact opposite.
Sadly the internet does not really contradict the (statist dominated) schools and universities.
Indeed the presence of “the left” (for want of a better term) on the internet has got stronger and stronger over time – Wikipedia and so on are dominated by the same leftist ideas as the schools and universities (indeed one must “cite” from these poisoned wells in order to get edits accepted).
And just recently we now have the government take over of the internet – under the mask of “net neutrality”.
The best way to combat tyranny is to laugh at it?
No not really. Indeed humour and mockery are normally weapons AGAINST reason – if people laugh at the clever antics of Saul Alinsky types they often forget to ask themselves the basic question.
Is the person making the jokes really correct? Or is the “pompous” person they are mocking actually correct?
Humour is more of a weapon (like a sword) than a road to the truth. Of course using weapons against tyranny is justified – but only if one does not put a worse tyranny in its place,
The “Arab Spring” attacked dictators – but it did not attack the idea that government should hand out stuff to the poor (and neither does the New Zealand Labour party – contrary to what the young lady implied).
Indeed the “Arab Spring” people wanted the governments of the Middle East to hand out MORE free stuff. Just as the New Zealand Labour Government of 2010 (when the young lady was speaking) was handing out MORE free stuff to more people.
This Social Justice principle must be fought – although I suspect the young lady is correct, the decisive conflict will only come at a moment of crises. Of economic and social breakdown.
I think Sean has put too many films up – no one has time to listen to 50 or so broadcasts in one day.
The “Libertarian Party” in the United States is essentially a “vote splitting” exercise – it came as no surprise to me when it turned out that many “Libertarian” candidates were funded (whether they knew it or not) by Democrats – hoping to split the Republican vote.
Is reform possible?
The lady is gloomy about these matters – and there is much evidence in favour of her position. Indeed it could be argued the lady is not gloomy enough – for example what “brave moves to cut government spending” in Britain?
Even when someone is elected who does want to reduce taxes and government spending, for example Governor Brownback of Kansas, the courts (or some other institution) may simply say “you can not do that” (even though the courts can not produce any words from the Constitution of Kansas to actually support their arbitrary power).
New Zealand did indeed reduce the size and scope of government. Although it is not true that all of the reforms were undertaken by the Labour party – although some indeed were.
However, the basic idea that government was there to hand “free” education and healthcare was not challenged (although most people in New Zealand are talking out forms of private health insurance) and the number of people on welfare has actually greatly increased in New Zealand (and was increasing when the lady spoke).
Government spending in New Zealand and the United States (and basically everywhere else) is overwhelmingly on government health, education and welfare schemes.
Getting rid of American farm subsidies would indeed be a good thing – but the basic problem (the unsustainable “entitlement programs”) would still be growing.
“Log rolling” and so on is actually in decline in the United States – roads to nowhere (and so on) are in decline.
Even China is introducing (not getting rid of – introducing) government backed pensions, and various welfare services.
As is India.
Even South Korea and Taiwan are.
The “Social Justice” ideology must be fought at some point – for it is Social Justice ideology (NOT “special interest groups”) is the real problem.
However, I agree that only in a crises (an absolute crises) can a fundamental reform against “Social Justice” take place.
As for humour.
“The Daily Show” and the “Colbert Report” work for a bigger government not a smaller one – it is astonishing that the young lady does not see this.
They are not the same sort of show as Penn and Teller’s show – they are almost the exact opposite.
Sadly the internet does not really contradict the (statist dominated) schools and universities.
Indeed the presence of “the left” (for want of a better term) on the internet has got stronger and stronger over time – Wikipedia and so on are dominated by the same leftist ideas as the schools and universities (indeed one must “cite” from these poisoned wells in order to get edits accepted).
And just recently we now have the government take over of the internet – under the mask of “net neutrality”.
The best way to combat tyranny is to laugh at it?
No not really. Indeed humour and mockery are normally weapons AGAINST reason – if people laugh at the clever antics of Saul Alinsky types they often forget to ask themselves the basic question.
Is the person making the jokes really correct? Or is the “pompous” person they are mocking actually correct?
Humour is more of a weapon (like a sword) than a road to the truth. Of course using weapons against tyranny is justified – but only if one does not put a worse tyranny in its place,
The “Arab Spring” attacked dictators – but it did not attack the idea that government should hand out stuff to the poor (and neither does the New Zealand Labour party – contrary to what the young lady implied).
Indeed the “Arab Spring” people wanted the governments of the Middle East to hand out MORE free stuff. Just as the New Zealand Labour Government of 2010 (when the young lady was speaking) was handing out MORE free stuff to more people.
This Social Justice principle must be fought – although I suspect the young lady is correct, the decisive conflict will only come at a moment of crises. Of economic and social breakdown.