Friday, September 26, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Charity – the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
Altruism – The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
Liberalism’s core is built on the assumption that government bureaucracies can be effective instruments of altruism. From the Democrats’ view, altruism occurs whenever money is taken from those who have it and given to those who don’t. However, the same process equally describes a mugging.
Democrats have failed to exercise the least due diligence in the planning, design, and testing of their core proposition. Yet they demand we bet our prosperity and our children’s futures on it. If it doesn't work on paper, it won't work in practice. In practice, the 50-year-old war on poverty squandered 16 trillion dollars and destroyed the black family and left poverty unscratched. In practice, Stalin took land from the Kulaks, gave it to collective ownership by the peasants, and starved 7,000,000 in 1932-1933. We have an endless supply of evidence that it doesn’t work in practice. But going backwards, does it even work on paper?
We could recommend Democrats emulate software engineering. Tools like “use case” diagrams expose shortcomings of complex software systems in their infancy. But it doesn’t require anything so complex to expose the lack of intellectual or moral rigor in the Democrats’ central theory.
It is the participants' emotional states and final intentions that determine whether the world was improved by an intended act of charity. So let's start with a simple bullet list of actions and reactions in a simple charitable act.
A Simple Charitable Act
- Philanthropist is affected by plight of a potential beneficiary
- Philanthropist assesses the need for intervention
- Is it serious enough to warrant interference?
- How much help is needed?
- Is the victim genuine or fraudulent?
- Philanthropist gives according to his ability and conscience (or refrains from giving)
- Recipient is grateful to the giver
- He's probably determined to make the most of his good luck, since this chance may not come again
- He's likely to be inspired to “live up to” the gift or repay his debt,
- or possibly embarrassed by the social stigma of accepting charity
- Motivated to ensure that he should never feel similar shame again
- Giver feels ennobled and is likely to seek out future opportunities to repeat the experience
Sometimes the problems are big and broad. Charitable organizations such as the Salvation Army and the Red Cross then act as agents between large groups of donors and recipients. But the essential dynamics remain the same: a donor celebrates in his free choice, and a grateful recipient moves toward independence and an increased value to society.
Contrast these results with:
A Typical Government Giveaway
- Victims of a “social issue” are identified
- Politicians count the likely voters they will win or lose if they act or not
- Scapegoats are chosen
- Claiming "injustice" helps marshal public opinion, intimidate opponents
- Democrat politicians strut and preen, congratulate themselves for their superior compassion
- Opponents are vilified as "selfish"
- The victims are told they are entitled, have a "right" to assistance
- No one explains where the victims get their "right" to steal others’ money
- No one explains why the victims’ demands to other people’s money isn’t “selfish”
- A law is passed to authorize tax money to be given to the victims
- A government agency is established to oversee the handouts
- The victims receive handouts
- Gratitude to the taxpayers who sacrificed is replaced by gratitude to the Democrat Party thieves who steal on their behalf
- The victims vote Democrat to express their gratitude and keep the assistance flowing
- They often discover that it pays better to stay on public assistance indefinitely than to wean themselves
- Victims’ aspirations for a better life fade into satisfaction with a marginally bearable status quo
- Years pass and the program grows to cover situations and problems which were never debated when the law first passed
- Agency growth is like a metastasizing cancer
- News stories describe the corruption in the program
- Democrats run for office on the pledge that they will root out “waste, fraud, and abuse" in the program
- If loopholes are plugged, the scam artists soon figure out better ways to cheat
- Normally honest people, made cynical by the spectacle of corruption celebrated as compassion, are enticed to similarly cheat the system
- Private charity shrivels as increasing taxes shrink everyone’s ability to give
- Any suggestion that the program be terminated is met by rabid lobbyists and special interest groups
- chanting the mantra "Rights! Compassion! Social Justice!"
Clearly, outsourcing our compassion to government handout programs can't work. Altruism’s bedrock characteristic of disinterested selflessness can’t be achieved by self-serving politicians using taxpayers’ money to buy votes. The taxpayer, who is involuntarily relieved of his “contribution” (none too gently) by the taxman, is denied his opportunity for spiritual growth. The beneficiary is spared any emotional or material spur to self-reliance.
The left claims to have churned crap into butter, sublimating theft into something fair and fine. And the obvious lie is accepted by otherwise honest people. They wouldn’t dream of robbing anyone at gunpoint. They think nothing of sending a government to do it for them.
This isn’t altruism. This is altruism’s perverted evil twin.
Democrats will never be able to diagram a theoretical model of government-run altruism. Government control will always be fertile ground for these intrinsic seeds of failure: venality, deceit, sloth, power lust, vengeance, coercion, fraud, and self-promotion. Before anyone votes for a Democrat in November, we should all demand Democrats try to make that diagram. I’d donate to see that.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/liberals_need_to_actually_use_the_drawing_board.html#ixzz3EG9NDZUq
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Paul Ehrlich, The Secular Saint Of The Neo-Malthusian movement?, The doom-sayers are becoming more fashionable Just As Experts Are Coming To The Vew It Has All Been One Giant False Alarm.
Malthus Theory and EUGENIC both schools coming to heavily influence the field of eugenics.
|Eugenics Society member, Margaret Sanger, who later founded Planned Parenthood, also advocated sterilization of the so-called unfit.|
In 1950 Sanger advocated eugenic sterilization in a personal letter she wrote to Katharine Dexter McCormick, an heir to the International Harvester fortune who used her immense wealth to fund the development of the birth-control pill.
Sanger wrote, “I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately; there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.”
How did Thomas Malthus influence Darwin's theory of evolution?
By writing a book that proposed human suffering and death from starvation because the population of humans went up exponentially but the supply of food goes up arithmetically. Darwin took this idea as an insight. He figured that populations of organisms produced far more progeny then the environment could supply with resources. So a selective process would be put in place. The fitter organisms would survive and reproduce while this much less fit would lose the struggle for existence.
Charles Darwin, the biologist, was immensely impressed by Malthus' ideas, and the Malthusian theories are embedded in Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selectio (The Origin of Species, 1859, and The Descent of Man, 1871). But after Darwin borrowed ideas from economics and inserted them into biology, his cousin reversed the process and discovered ideas in biology that could be applied to humans. This is one of the first tricks that amateur magicians learn, like "finding" a coin in a child's ear. The amazing thing about Galton's stunt is that it has fooled so many people for so long.
Darwin knew that a natural population has similar inherited variability and that the size of natural populations tended to remain constant, despite a tremendous potential for reproduction. It was clear that if there were the potential for a natural selection that would parallel the conscious selection of the plant or animal breeder, a mechanism would have been found for the origin of new varieties in nature. |
A critical point in Darwin's thinking came when he considered a most-unlikely piece of reading for a natural historian - the Essay on the Principle of Population, by Thomas Robert Malthus (1798). Malthus was essentially an economist who wrote his essay considerably prior to Darwin's work. Malthus was analyzing the relationship between human population size and the availability of resources such as food. The key element in Malthus' discussion was that these two factors - population size and resource availability - could never remain in proportion to one another. Increasing population size, as Malthus reasoned, was a geometric function, but, in his view, new resources could, at best, be increased at an arithmetic rate. Inevitably, increasing population size would lead to limits in available resources, causing human populations to compete for those resources that were available. As the gap between populations and resource availability widened, this competition would become more intense, leading ultimately to war and famine.
The foundation of Malthus' theory relies on two assumptions that he views as fixed,
namely that food and passion between sexes are both essential for human's existence.
Malthus believed that the world's population tends to increase at a faster rate than its
food supply. Whereas population grows at a geometric rate, the production capacity
only grows arithmetically. Therefore, in the absence of consistent checks on
population growth, Malthus made the gloomy prediction that in a short period of time,
scarce resources will have to be shared among an increasing number of individualshttp://web.stanford.edu/~ranabr/Malthusian%20and%20Neo%20Malthusian1%20for%20webpage%20040731.pdf
The population timebomb is a myth
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Progressives Hate the US Constitution, Progressives hate the tea parties and they hate the constitution. These are the two principle impediments preventing them from finishing what Woodrow Wilson and FDR started.
The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straitjacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness."
-- Woodrow Wilson
The liberal propagandists in the press tried branding us racists, but such blatant attacks don't work anymore, so they have adopted more subtle tactics. EJ Dionne is the latest to deploy a deft combination I call the non-sequitur straw man. Follow me as I deconstruct a piece of progressive propaganda.
Unlike God, the founders left us an amendment process
Dionne's neat rhetorical trick asserts that we tea partiers equate the US Constitution with the Holy Bible. This is a neat trick because yes, we believe the constitution must be followed just as The Bible must be. His unstated non-sequitur avers that since we equate the constitution with The Bible, we must also equate the founders with God Almighty. This sets up the straw man argument that we worship the constitution and the founders. It's a straw man because unlike God, the founders left us an amendment process.
Dionne starts out with an innocuous statement...
I offer the Republicans two cheers for their fealty to their professed ideals. We badly need a full-scale debate over what the Constitution is, means and allows -- and how Americans have argued about these questions since the beginning of the republic. This provision should be the springboard for a discussion all of us should join.
He plants a few little seeds of doubt there, but so far so good. Next comes the premise for the non-sequitur straw man...
From its inception, the tea party movement has treated the nation's great founding document not as the collection of shrewd political compromises that it is, but as the equivalent of sacred scripture.
Note that this statement contains two elements, the first is plainly stated, the second one tacitly follows: 1) The constitution is a document like The Bible that government must obey; 2) Unstated: If the constitution is the equivalent of sacred scripture, then the founders are the equivalent of an infallible God.
Number 2 is the strawman that does not follow from the first statement. Since EJ cannot argue with statement #1, he invents the non-sequitur strawman, statement #2, and then knocks it down:
Yet as Gordon Wood, the widely admired historian of the Revolutionary era has noted, we "can recognize the extraordinary character of the Founding Fathers while also knowing that those 18th-century political leaders were not outside history. ... They were as enmeshed in historical circumstances as we are, they had no special divine insight into politics, and their thinking was certainly not free of passion, ignorance, and foolishness."
See how he sets up the straw man so he can knock down those crazy rightwingers who want to tea party like it's 1776? EJ Dionne is too smart to really believe that we deify the founders, so all I can conclude is that he is engaging in a deliberate propaganda smear.
Progressives are not out to destroy the tea parties; they have bigger fish to fry:
An examination of the Constitution that views it as something other than the books of Genesis or Leviticus would be good for the country.
Yes, let's knock that dusty bit of outmoded parchment off its pedestal. Good progressives like EJ Dionne and Ezra Klein are just following in the footsteps of Progressivism's great grand daddy, Woodrow Wilson. They can’t quite muster the intellectual starch of this racist scholar and failed statesman, but it’s just the right pitch for the MSNBC crowd. It's neo-progressivism reduced to valley girl vapidity:
"The constitution is, like, so old, and full of, like, so many old words that are, like, spelled funny. Bogus! It's like totally irrelevant, totally!"
They want a living, breathing constitution, to which Dr. Walter E. Williams has the perfect riposte:
How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush.
Indeed. Those who crave power and control must have "living rules." Oh, and they also want to hold the book, because some animals are more equal than others.
Progressive Socialists (a.k.a. liberal Democrats) are like pig farmers. In an effort to bury opposing viewpoints they sling pejorative slop, labeling as “bigot,” “hater,” “wingnut” or “racist” those with whom they disagree. It’s the height of intellectual sloth.
The name calling from the left reminds me of when I was a kid and how the neighborhood bullies resorted to slinging a host of nouns, stopping short of a punch in the nose. They didn't punch because, in reality, they were sissies.
The ad hominem approach – chief among logical fallacies – undergirds an effort to both marginalize conservative viewpoints and avoid arguing on the merits the controversies of the day. For liberals, to set sail in fair debate is to navigate treacherous waters.
We’ve seen this tired tactic abused ad nauseum in recent days by the mainstream media and Democrats. Aided by hard-left outfits such as the Southern Poverty Law Center – all too eager to provide “expert analysis” tailor-made for jaundiced journalism – liberal elites have been desperate to throw poison on bourgeoning grassroots opposition to Obama’s careening Marxist agenda. It’s straight out of the “progressive” playbook: Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”
Hence, in the face of zero supporting evidence, “Tea Party” conservatives, Constitutionalists, pro-life and pro-family Americans, and generally any patriot who disagrees with the Obama administration are smeared with “hate’s” broad brush.
Progressive-Socialists don't use reason, documentation or proof to back up their claims about those with whom they disagree. They just hurl insults like a bulimic lady who seeks to satisfy her craze by hurling groceries. In both cases (i.e. the P-S and the bulimic) they are sick.
Grandma and Grandpa; your fireman neighbor; school teachers; pastors; butchers; bakers; and candlestick makers are now “potentially violent right-wing extremists.” They are, as Mark Potok, Huffington Post columnist and SPLC director puts it, “…shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” and are widely linked to “hate” and “vigilante groups.” (Knock it off, Mark. With the exception of your fellow moveon.org-types, the vast majority of Americans aren’t biting.)
Nonetheless, every once in a while, as it goes, “even a blind squirrel finds a nut.” While I rarely agree with the Mark Potoks of the world, today, on at least one issue, I find myself doing so. Cult leader Fred Phelps and his Westboro brood of “God hates F-gs” fame are infused to the marrow with pure, unadulterated hate.
Phelps hates homosexuals. He hates the military. He hates America. He apparently hates everyone. But he also hurts people. Intentionally, I believe.
Phelps contends that every time a U.S. soldier dies in combat its God’s judgment for our nation’s affirmation of homosexual sin. Best known for disrupting military funerals, Phelps is – and was – a lot of things: He’s a former Kansas Democratic gubernatorial candidate; he was an Al Gore fundraiser for the ex-Veep’s 1988 presidential run; he’s a self-styled “Baptist minister;” and he’s a buffoon.
But one man decided to fight back. As reported by the AP: “Albert Snyder of York, Pa., is suing [Phelps’] church that picketed the funeral of his son, who died in a vehicle accident in Iraq. The Westboro Baptist Church contends U.S. military deaths are God’s punishment for tolerance of homosexuality. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.
“The appeals court ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 in court costs to Westboro and its pastor, Fred Phelps. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly has pledged to donate that amount. An American Legion spokesman says the veterans’ group has collected more than $12,000 in donations. People can also donate directly to Snyder on a Web site in his son's name.
” (To donate go to www.mathewsnyder.org).
Indeed, Phelps and his incestuous band of Dale Carnegie rejects represent hate personified. Rather than taking the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach to sexual immorality, these false prophets preach counterfeit Christianity, devoid of the faith’s core tenet: redemption.
They labor under the misconception that, somehow, they are exempt from the Gospel’s central “judge not lest ye be judged” provision. “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one.’” Romans 3:10.
I pray that Phelps and Co. will both repent and seek Christ’s redemption for the harm they’ve caused people like the Snyders. I also pray that liberals will repent. By lumping together with Phelps those who recognize traditional, biblical sexual morality, homosexual activists and the left-wing media trivialize true hate.
Indeed, many Americans – perhaps most – adhere to the biblical notion that all sexual conduct outside the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman is sexually immoral. (Sorry liberals, that’s just the way it is; nothing personal. Despite disingenuous bleatings to the contrary, such beliefs are typically as far removed from hate as Phelps is from cuddly. Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology hold this to be true. And as with all absolute truth, it just is.)
So, Fred Phelps aside, every time you hear some lefty like Anderson Cooper or Keith Olbermann despicably refer to Bible-believing Christians as “homophobes,” or who call grandma a “teabagger” (slang for a vile homosexual act), consider who the real haters are.
Whenever Mark Potok, Rachel Maddow or some liberal politico in Congress attempts to equate conservative Joe to a “right wing extremists” or a “domestic terrorist,” contemplate who the true bigots are.
The palpable irony is that leftists – with their slanderous name-calling, harsh judgments and ad hominem attacks – are, in truth, more like Phelps than those they falsely accuse.Progress demands a vigorous, open and honest debate. “Progressives” should quit the empty name calling and stop running-scared from true progress.