Archive for the ‘Communism’ Category

« Older Entries

It’s Science: Facts Don’t Matter

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

In fact, facts may actually reinforce opposing assumptions.

It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight.

In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

More evidence that putting the educated elite in charge of our lives is a bad idea.

My sense is that academics and bureaucrats must be as susceptible to this as anyone else, perhaps even moreso, because they are, effectively, trained to think that they are right, and they are totally isolated from real world consequences if they are wrong. Instead, their assumption that the stupid ignorant mundanes just didn’t take their advice strongly enough, and so they must be forced.

Individuals may well fall victim to the problem, but if they act on false assumptions, they will fail, and they will not be able to force their failure on those around them.

I now propose Moore’s Arrow:

All sources of bias arising from education are arguments for reducing government power.

The only bulwark against this seems to be Popper’s discipline of falsifiability. This demonstrably works, however slowly and unreliably.

Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Communism, Dammit!, Edumakashun, Government Idiocy, Liberals, Political Correctness, Politics & Politicians, Science, Socialism, The Fall, Throwing Out the Trash | 1 Comment »

Joe McCarthy: Right All Along

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

The idea that Senator Joe McCarthy was correct about Communists infesting the government and entertainment industry is gaining currency. The Beeb is among the latest to realize this:

David Aaronovitch thinks the unthinkable about the McCarthy period.

The hunt for the so called ‘Reds under the beds’ during the Cold War is generally regarded as a deeply regrettable blot on U.S history. But the release of classified documents reveals that Joseph McCarthy was right after all about the extent of Soviet infiltration into the highest reaches of the U.S government.

Thanks to the public release of top secret FBI decryptions of Soviet communications, as well as the release under the fifty year rule of FBI records and Soviet archives, we now know that the Communist spying McCarthy fought against was extensive, reaching to the highest level of the State department and the White House.

We reveal that many of McCarthy’s anticommunist investigations were in fact on target. His fears about the effect Soviet infiltration might be having on US foreign policy, particularly in the Far East were also well founded.

The decrypts also reveal that people such as Rosenberg, Alger Hiss and even Robert Oppenheimer were indeed working with the Soviets. We explore why much of this information, available for years to the FBI, was not made public. We also examine how its suppression prevented the prosecution of suspects.

Finally, we explore the extent to which Joseph McCarthy, with his unsavoury methods and smear tactics, could have done himself a disservice, resulting in his name being forever synonymous with paranoia and the ruthless suppression of free speech.

The programme airs Sunday at 13:30 on BBC Radio 4 (FM only).

Via Samizdata, which notes:

I distrust that last bit, about McCarthy’s “unsavoury tactics” being to blame for his failure. It was McCarthy’s fault that the Bolsheviks weren’t unmasked? I wait to be convinced that what saved the Bolsheviks of that time and place was Joe McCarthy’s ineptness. I prefer the more obvious explanation, which is that the very Bolsheviks who had, as McCarthy rightly claimed, dug themselves into the US government were the ones who stopped him.

This may also be available on the Web; I hope so, because it’s an important topic.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Communism, Dammit!, History, Liberals, News Media, Press, Socialism, The Fall | 1 Comment »

QotD: “Governments Redistribute Poverty, Not Wealth”

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Doc Zero write, “Value is Knowledge“:

there is very little feedback from the free market to the State. The State conjures deficit money from thin air, and believes itself capable of sustaining unlimited losses in the service of a “just cause.” Ideology is pursued in defiance of cost and benefit analysis. Politicians rarely suffer personal consequences for disastrous economic decisions. In fact, they have a good chance of manipulating such disasters into golden opportunities to acquire more power for themselves.

The State is exceptionally poor at analyzing the true value of anything. The lens of ideology is filled with clouds of hatred, occasionally sundered by blinding flashes of righteousness. The actual value of health care and medical insurance was almost completely invisible to the architects of ObamaCare.
…
The great lesson of socialism will be repeated one more time, as it has played out around the world, without exception: governments redistribute poverty, not wealth. Some people will find ways to make money in the dreary twilight of an economy where the light of knowledge through value has been blotted out. You probably won’t be one of them.

And this:

The masterminds behind ObamaCare will quietly relish the collapse of the private health insurance industry, which was one of their primary objectives all along.

It’s crucial to understand that this is their objective because they believe the marketplace is inherently evil. They think they’re doing the right thing, that they are making the world a better place.

They believe that wealth is money, gold, wampum. Beads and trinkets.

Doc has it right: what has real value is information. “Information wants to be free,” yes, but socialists believe that the government can own all the information, and hand it out in equal little chunks out to everybody. They don’t understand that different people in different situations place different value on a given piece of information.

Tags: , ,
Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Communism, Dammit!, Democrats, Economics, Government Idiocy, Liberals, Politics & Politicians, Socialism | 1 Comment »

Cartoon Switches Sides

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

First I saw this:

[Click for full-size]
Amusing and dead on, some of them — except the best ones aren’t actually libertarians at all, just authoritarians looking for an excuse to misbehave while ordering other people around.

And the actual libertarian summary, “no first use of force”, aka “Oh noes! The libertarians are in power, and they refuse to tell us what to do!” doesn’t make an appearance.

Then I found this over at House of Eratosthenes:
24 Little Hitlers
[aka "authoritarians" or, let's face it, "socialists"]
[again, click for full size]

And the interesting thing here, of course, is that none of these guys are betraying their principles; this is the socialist paradigm, straight up.

One small tweak to the socialist version, although this doesn’t work if they’re labeled “authoritarians”: the last frame should stay the same: “stoned”.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Comics, Communism, Cool Stuff, Laugh Dammit!, Liberals, Politics & Politicians, Socialism, libertarians | 1 Comment »

“We Will Not Be Silenced”

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

Multi-part video documenting charges of voter intimidation and outright voter fraud during the Democratic Primary by the “Chicago-style” Obama machine versus Hillary Clinton supporters.

This was put together by Democrats; it’s not a Republican or Tea Party hit job.

It makes me wonder three things:

First, what’s going to happen this November? I may sign up as a poll watcher.

Second, what did they threaten Hillary with to get her to accept the Secretary of State position?

Third, where was the press during all this? Heh, heh, just joking, of course; we all know where the press was: on its knees before its Lord’s zipper.

Anyway, posting first of five parts; follow links at youtube for the rest.

Via Carol’s Closet.

Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Communism, Dammit!, Democrats, Hillary, Liberals, Politics & Politicians, Socialism, The Fall | 1 Comment »

QotD: Civil Discourse

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

MIke at Cold Fury, takes aim at socialists whining about people calling Byrd out as a racist tax monger:

Civil discourse? Here’s all the civil discourse these Red-toothed, America-hating douchebags deserve: fuck every last one of them. In the heart, railroad spike, cayenne pepper in the Vaseline; you know the drill.

This in support of the American Power post decrying the racist hypocrisy over at Firedog Lake and other statist venues, where spewing venom at ill, dying, and dead Republicans is acceptable, even encouraged.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Communism, Cool Stuff, Liberals, Political Correctness, Socialism | Comments Off

Out of Context

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Your President, Ladies and Gentlemen:

President Obama on controlling the debt: “Somehow people say, why are you doing that, I’m not sure that’s good politics. I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it and I think it’s the right thing to do. People should learn that lesson about me because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country….

He’s talking about controlling the debt, and I should be thrilled with that, but this quote just scares the pants off me.

I’m reading that bit about politics and “right thing to do” as “I don’t care what you morons think, I know what’s best for you and I’m going to give it to you good and hard.”

I’m reading “should learn that lesson about me” as “the gloves are coming off”. I hate that phrase in his mouth. [update: Moreover, he's talking down to us: "You children, you."]

And most of all I’m reading “hard choices” as “no choice at, you’ll do what I say”.

As for “I said I was going to do it”, yes. I believe that. Thing is, I think he’s talking about stuff he and his mentors were talking about back before anybody knew he was, not what he said in the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Listen to things he lists as examples of things he said he would do and did. Stuff he doesn’t like, doesn’t care about, like the oil spill or Afghanistan, he plays golf. Things he does care about, like health care and financial reform, or firing a disapproving general, he bulls through ruthlessly.

Jesus, this man scares the hell out of me.

Via John Lott.

Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Communism, Dammit!, Economics, ObamaCare, Socialism, The Fall | 1 Comment »

Obama, Do Your Damn Job

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Hey, you think that “Declaration 2.0″ thingie a post or two down is a joke?

Here’s a bill of particulars with references to the Constitution.

Mexican gangs with lookout posts IN ARIZONA??? Mexican snipers?? What in Hell is the matter with you? Are you so intent on “fundamentally transforming” this country that you will allow this? An ARMED incursion across our southern border and death threats to law enforcement and YOU ALLOW THIS???

If so, then you are a traitor in the purest sense of the word and should be treated as such. You are in direct violation of the Constitution by denying the citizens of Arizona the right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” as outlined in the Fourth Amendment, in addition to your failure to respect Article IV Sec.4 of the Constitution regarding the “guarantee to EVERY (individual) state a republican form of government and shall protect each of them (including Arizona) against INVASION”.

AND your failure “To provide for the calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and REPEL INVASIONS” (Article 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution)

You are also in violation of Article III Sec. 3 of the Constitution in that, by allowing these outposts to exist you are indirectly giving “Aid and Comfort” to an invading force, the enemy. You have, at the very least, allowed a potential state of war to exist on our own sovereign soil and have done nothing to defend or support those in the line of fire. Abandonment and persecution of the people you were sworn to protect makes “Traitor” seems appropriate.

I must add, you are not only a traitor but a seditionist as well. That you are IN FACT, guilty of “overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order” We The People being the legal authority and states rights being the “established order”.

“Subversion of a constitution” and “incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority” which you have done by demonizing the people of and filing suit against, the state of Arizona. You have, in fact, created a “commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws” (of the state of Arizona) all of which are part of the very definition of sedition. You have, in essence, declared war on one of our own states by these actions and you WILL be held accountable.

Read it all, every word.

And you leg-tingling “Journo-lists” who acted as this thug’s mouthpiece during and after the election?

Right up against the wall with him. You’re not the independent, free press protected by the Constitution; you’re his shills, and if he starts bailing out your worthless puppy trainers, you’ll be his paid shills, his co-conspirators.

Anybody out there willing to admit they voted for him? Still proud of it? Here’s your rough-hewn rail, have a nice ride out of town.

Feeling a bit duped?

Too. Fucking. Bad. You deserve everything that’s about to come down around your poor little ignorant innocent socialist peacenik ears. We’ll do our best to keep it from killing you, but remember: we don’t feel sorry for you, we blame you. We’ll let you in if you promise to work, but expect a lot of rough words and angry glares while you dig the latrines.

Via Sondra K. Again.

Tags: , ,
Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Bill of Rights, Communism, Constitution, Dammit!, Democrats, Fighting Back, Government Idiocy, History, Immigration, Liberals, Military, Political Correctness, Politics & Politicians, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Socialism, The Fall | 1 Comment »

On Ramp to The Road to Serfdom

Saturday, June 26th, 2010

Or maybe it’s the off-ramp, I dunno. Depends on if you’re talking about socialism, the actual road to serfdom, or F.A. Hayek’s explanation of how to avoid it.

Anyway, Thomas J. DiLorenzo of The Mises Institute has an excellent introduction to the ideas and history of Hayek’s clear-eyed refutation of the myth that the state can direct the economy, even intimate personal lives of its citizens, without falling into despotism.

When Friedrich A. Hayek published his classic book, The Road to Serfdom, in 1944 he was loudly denounced by academic statist apologists in England, where he resided at the time, and in America. In the preface to the 1976 edition of the book Hayek noted that a prominent philosopher even denounced the book despite admitting that he had not read it! But average citizens did read it. The book was a gigantic success in America, quickly selling over half a million copies. Millions of copies of a condensed Reader’s Digest version of the book were also sold and widely read.

The court historians in academe were not concerned about Hayek’s age-old warnings about the dangers that centralized political power posed to liberty and prosperity, for they intended to be beneficiaries of that power as well-paid advisers to the state. Millions of average citizens were not as enthusiastic, especially Americans who, during the war, had experienced oppressive and confiscatory taxation, the slavery of military conscription, government-imposed product rationing, pervasive shortages of basic staples, and endless bureaucratic bungling.

[My emphasis.]

Galvanizing, isn’t it? All that rationing we hear about in the histories wasn’t just the heroic sacrifices of patriotic citizens; it was the direct result of FDR’s ham-handed control of the economy and society itself.

It’s often said that Stalin won the war on the Eastern front despite his best efforts to lose, by purging his best generals and foolishly sending his subjects to die in the German Wehrmacht meatgrinder to no good result.

Here we see Stalin’s ally, FDR, presented in the same light. Economic historians are beginning to understand that FDR didn’t rescue America from the Depression, he worsened it, lengthened it. Then he used the war as an excuse to tighten the straps even further.

How quickly might the war have been over had FDR unleashed the American economy? Would our enemies have dared to attack or harass the American powerhouse of the 80s and 90s?

We’ll never know. But we’re in another war right now, and our Commander in Chief is more interested in fighting American industry and business, and in controlling the lives of we citizens, than he is in defeating America’s enemies.

That cannot end well. Hayek explains exactly how far down the road we’ve gotten.

Tags: , ,
Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Communism, Economics, Government Idiocy, Liberals, Politics & Politicians, Socialism, War | 1 Comment »

Right and Left

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

On news that F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom is number one on Amazon, I visited there and checked some of the reviews and forum discussions. One comment prompted me to make a stab at something I’ve been struggling with for some time: the inappropriateness of the current most popular labels of political discourse: right versus left, and liberal versus conservative. The two sides are addressing different issues, rather than the same issue from different perspectives.

I wrote:
@Kreitman: “Do you think [Beckheads] will go on to read Hayek’s “Why I am not a conservative” essay?”
I am not a Beckhead, but I do follow Hayek, and thus believe in strictly limited government. I have also read “Why I am not a conservative”, and largely agree with it.

The problem with “conservative/right” and “liberal/left” is that those terms have been ripped loose from their historical foundations. “Left/Right” originally referred to the seating in the 18th century French parliament. “Conservative/Liberal” referred to supporters of the nobility and existing social, political, and religious institutions versus a more fluid, egalitarian, humanistic society. The original conservative v. liberal fight is, in the light of the American revolution, essentially over in the US and nations modeling themselves on the US success. The liberals won.

The current fight is between collectivists and individualists. The true modern political spectrum runs from tyranny to anarchy. Both extremes are, ahem, extremely dangerous; anarchy is also unstable and quickly collapses into tyranny.

The descriptions and labels of the two camps are incommensurate; they’re talking about different things. Worse, the basic vocabulary has been set by the statist/collectivist/socialist/communist wing, which has taken to itself the liberal/left label, and applied the right/conservative/capitalist labels to the individualist/minarchist/free market/entrepreneurial wing, which has no widely accepted terms of its own to apply to the debate.

A good example of the conflict is the differing interpretations of “the people”. Collectivists regard “the people” and “the state” as the same thing, with the state being the mechanism for achieving the most good for society as a whole by leading the people to act in concert for common ends; see various local and state courts, where the prosecution is announced as representing “the people” against individual members of same. Individualists regard “the people” as the aggregate of individual citizens acting in their own best interests; see “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, which makes no sense under the collectivist understanding. Then there’s the differing interpretations of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”….

Another example is “class”. Originally, this referred to the idea that people were either, by birth, “noble” or “common”, and that there was little mobility between the two. However, socialists have redefined it to mean “rich” versus “poor”, and “capitalist” v. “worker”, again assuming a rigid hierarchy. Thus, advocates of a free market enabling individuals to make their own decisions regarding the best use of the resources available to them, within the constraints of the rule of law, find themselves conflated with advocates of unconstrained robber barons and the divine right of kings.

Obviously, when such fundamental terms have such disparate definitions, it’s almost impossible to have an intelligible conversation.

[I have made some minor tweaks to the version posted here.]

Also see:

Enumerated Powers — The People as the Fourth Branch

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Communism, Conservatives, Economics, Liberals, My Principles, Philosophy, Politics & Politicians, Socialism | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries