Friday, May 18, 2007

How One Liberal Can Wreak Havoc Upon Society

I'm always amazed how one leftist, if strategically placed can wreak havoc upon thousands, if not millions of people.

Kim Jong Il comes to mind. One leftist, in a position of power keeps 22 million North Koreans impoverished and in hell.

Hugo Chavez is about the unleash a similar Venezuelan version of hell on his own countrymen.

But these are dictators who have the entirety and infrastructure of a government to unleash their evil. Some leftists are not so fortunate. But every once in a while, one of them gets lucky and finds themselves at the right place and the right time to foist a lesser standard of living upon the masses and detract from other peoples' lives.

This woman is such an example (awesome article here);

Here you have some woman, who no doubt enjoys the highest standards of living in the West, who never starved or missed a meal, who is suffering from some kind of mid-life crisis and looks back at her life and says, "what have I accomplished?"

Now, you can go and become a doctor, start a business, join the police department, or work with orphans or a bevy of millions of other things to add worth to your life and give your time here on this planet meaning. But what do Baby Boomers and Gen X'ers lean towards now as their primary means of making a difference?

Going on some god damned worthless political crusade.

For you see, becoming an activist or picking up some random crusade doesn't require effort. It doesn't require you to do anything.

To become an officer you must go through training.

To become a doctor, you must get some schooling.

To help orphans you need to donate your time.

But to go on some random political, activist-ridden crusade, all you have to do is say you care and BOOM! You have gone from "Middle Aged Person Nobody" to... (drum roll)

INSTANT POLITICAL CRUSADER PERSON!

Forget whether the crusade actually helps society out or not, no, that doesn't matter. It only matters that the newly reborn political crusader feel good about themselves. And ideally, if you can avoid any real effort, sweat, thinking or toil, all the better, because again, it really isn't to end the war in Iraq, or help the children in Africa, it's so you can go hold that sign up and protest because it makes you feel like it's 1969 all over again.

But this professional activist hit the leftist lottery jackpot. In protesting against the development of a larger main port, she's effectively limiting the amount of goods that can be imported into Europe, namely Chinese imports. And in doing so she's choking off the supply of goods and services into Europe which will drive up prices for those goods and services and in doing so effectively decrease the standards of living of 500 million Europeans.

That's got to be a HUGE ego boost to a socialist. I can see her now, "I may not be Lenin, but I just single handedly forced 500 million Europeans to pay higher prices for imported goods by bottlenecking one of the largest ports. I'm a rebel. I'm a crusader!!! I made a difference!"

So for one person's psychological self-worth 500 million Europeans, some of which are poor and could certainly benefit from the increased purchasing power Chinese goods afford them, will be forced to pay higher prices so she and her merry band of professional activists can feel good about themselves. Forget whether that difference is good or bad for society, that's not the point, all that matters is that the crusader get to feel good about themselves (see - "Al Gore")

There is one final thing I'd like to point out, as I have pointed it out before. And that is if you want a reason why China will inevitably kick the west's ass in economic growth and productivity, just look at the highlighted section of the article.

I've mentioned it before, but if you get a dictatorship that knows what its doing (at least economically, not necessarily democratically, and not that I necessarily agree with it) a lot of hurdles, stops and speed bumps are removed from attaining excellent economic growth and that gives you a big advantage over your western economic counterparts. Like the shirt says, "Imagine a World with No Liberals."

I see a world with income per capita of $250,000 and a lot less poverty.

7 comments:

Mahan said...

And a lot less freedom.

All hail the party.

Maresa said...

Belgium (where I live) has been led by a coalition of socialists and liberals for the past eight years, and the mayor of Antwerp is also a socialist. They are the ones trying to build these docks, and it's this 'private property is holy' woman who's holding back the works. Check your facts before you get on your high horse.

Captain Capitalism said...

I will bet you she is indeed a socialist, maybe even a green.

Though I commend you and the socialists that are trying to build the port.

dtrum said...

Actually, this has become the pattern of politics in Europe: the conservatives and liberals behave like they are the new socialists, trying to get the votes from "the middle", while the socialist parties are often the only ones who do at least some small things that are economically right.

Remember who cut taxes in Germany eight years ago? It was Schroeder with his Social Democrats. What has changed since the conservatives with Ms Merkel regain power? The taxes have gone up again!

I think the same will happen in Britain with Mr Cameron, who resembles a rather labour/green candidate than a conservative.

Anonymous said...

While I am at it, what is a leftist? It looks like some of your own views could be considered leftist. The Wikipedia section on libratarians states:

Main article: political spectrum
Some contemporary political positions, such as the position known in the US as "libertarianism", have been argued as difficult to characterize in left-right terms. These libertarians reject the leftist advocacy of government regulation of business and protectionism that may be associated with the right. Arguably, their politics are the most similar to those of the classical liberalism of the old left of 1789; according to an Institute for Humane Studies paper, "the libertarian, or 'classical liberal,' perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by 'as much liberty as possible' and 'as little government as necessary.'"[14]
Many modern thinkers question whether the left-right distinction is even relevant in the 21st century. After all, in most countries left-right appears more a matter of historical contingency and local politics than any coherent statement of principle. After World War II, in order to remain politically relevant, the Western European right embraced most "leftist" aspects of economic intervention by government (see also Post-war consensus and Butskelism). Similarly, many on the left went along with the privatization and anti-communism of the Reagan-Thatcher era.


If you are going to use leftist as a dirty word, I would like to know what you mean.

-Bellicoze (My password is not working.)

Captain Capitalism said...

Socialists and commies.

Hoss said...

I call all the Marxist/Communist/Socialist folk leftists. A classic liberal was fairly defined as someone who believed in free markets and economic individualism....a far cry from the comrades these days that occupy the left side of the aisle.