Posts Tagged ‘ideology’

How to take over the world:

  1. think up an ideal* that is ultimately unprovable, inconceivable, inexplicable, irreproachable and non-corporeal in nature (e.g. a “God”, the ‘common good’, the ‘State’, the ‘environment’, animal “rights”, EDIT: fighting a disease)
    * this goal should also ultimately be essentially unachievable in reality.
  2. convince people that adhering to the [pursuit of the] ideal is more important than their own rational self-interest
  3. demonize anyone or anything that questions or tries to controvert the existence of the ideal in #1 or the [pursuit of the] realization of #2
  4. convince your following that the ‘demons’ created in #3 are a threat to #1 and must either convert or be destroyed

(originally posted to my facebook)

Read Full Post »

Originally posted to Facebook Notes

I just love how liberals try to paint themselves as ‘compassionate’ while denouncing and ridiculing others in a demeaning fashion in the process of alleging them responsible for same. Mind you I am not a far right conservative either but find the hypocrisy on the left to be the most offensive and dare I say ‘scary’ when combined with the ‘actual’ world result of supporting their agenda. I hear comments like “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot” coming from Al Franken, or similar comments from any number of other pundits about their favorite conservative demon of the moment.

Well turnabout is fair play, and I was enjoying an episode of south park the other night when I got to thinking about how often Comedy Central likes to spam the ‘Daily Show’ in their program line up and just how much it’s host just repulses me with his pompous idea of funny.

stewart_rectJohn Stewart funny? Jon Stewart is a typical New York liberal. Most of his humor is wound up in far left ideology that doesn’t work in a practical world and is wound in an elitist condescension that is not merely insulting to anyone that might disagree with his world view, but is downright insidious when you try to mask under the banner of satire. But thus is Modus Operandi for the far left, insult anyone you want but then cry fowl whenever you can even insinuate a prejudicial view from anyone who opposes your alleged ‘good intentions’.

So I’d like to go on record with my own gut feeling of the moment as I saw that guy with his mocking smile trying to explain how it is ‘reckless’ to allow taxpayers to keep their own money and ‘responsible’ to give it to liberal politicians and government. Pure and simple…

Jon Stewart is an elitist prick

Read Full Post »

Originally posted to talk.politics.libertarian on usenet

I remember once in a Econ class, there was a discussion on-going about the
‘velocity of money’ – i.e. how fast funds pass through an economic system.
High velocity of money was generally considered a good thing as it showed
consumers within the system were busy exchanging goods, generally resulting
in a healthier system as a whole.

I have since considered this principle when it relates to government office.
Personally, I think that in an ideal world, voters should be able to vote
for whoever they want – and resultingly get what they deserve.  But, both in
the spirit of Franklin’s “your rights end where my nose begins” as well as
the harsh realities of politics (i.e. corruption, ‘SPIN’, franking
privileges, etc.) one should not consider the ‘real’ world as anything close
to ‘ideal’.

As a result, one of the conclusions that I came to is that perhaps an
increase in the ‘velocity of politicians’ within a political system might
have a comparable effect to that which ‘velocity of money’ has to an
economic system.

Why not, instead of having ‘term limits’, seek out alternatives that would
instead limit candidates seeking electable offices in government from being
able to run for any one position twice?

I have seen and heard many compelling arguements that espouse the intention
of representative government in this country as encouraging representation
from members of the governed.  Meanwhile, what we ended up with is a vast
majority of elected offices (more so apparent when the authority of the
office is greater) being filled by so-called ‘career politicians’.

Restricting ‘consecutive terms’ for any (or some) government offices would
go far to discourage ‘career politicians’ – or in the least increase the
introduction of new ideas while decreasing the ‘entrenchment’ of the ‘old
guard’ style of politicians.

Furthermore, I would suggest on top of such an idea – that the role of
governing officials be restructured as not to facilitate a ‘full time job’
(complete with resulting benefits and absorbatent tax-payer-funded salaries
and ‘perks’) while providing for protections for the elected in much the
same way we honor public service in the military or national guard.  (i.e.
job security issues for when terms are complete or for part-time politicians
much as is usually the case on the local level)

Read Full Post »